|A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language firstname.lastname@example.org (Pete Gray) (2003-07-15)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language email@example.com (Juan Lauda) (2003-07-21)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language firstname.lastname@example.org (Jan Homuth) (2003-07-21)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language email@example.com (2003-07-21)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan Kirwan) (2003-07-23)|
|From:||"Jan Homuth" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||21 Jul 2003 21:32:49 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||21 Jul 2003 21:32:49 EDT|
> microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language.
What is this supposed to be ? Something like BASIC (see BASCOM
Or another C/EC++ ?
If you look at embedded applications in the 8/16 bit arena, even 32
bit (like PPC, 68k) You will allways see controller and derivative
depended modules. This is simply unavoidable when dealing with the
diversity of microcontroller applications, moreso looking at possible
variations of hardware configuration.
Simply consider the hardware setup and startup code for a Motorola PPC
or Infineon's 16 bit XC16x V2 core series or the 32 bit TriCore.
There is no such thing as hardware independency.
How are the very complex peripherals (TPU, CAPCOM, CAN, etc...) going
to be utilized efficiently, if not hardware dependend ?
Could you explain who will use it and what applications shall be
designed with it ?
with kind regards
Pete Gray <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> I'm about to embark on a project to produce a microcontroller-centric,
> target-neutral programming language.
> I'd like to hear views regarding the pros and cons of Industry or Academic
> sponsorship versus the Open Source approach.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.