On 5/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i found it easy enough to program in assembly, but i don't think you'd >> get very far with c. i just don't think you could fit things into memory. > > Well 'C compiler hosted on a larger machine, and with that one as a binary > target' will no doubt come back from someone. And that isn't wrong.
cross compilation is more important than ever.
This makes as much sense now as it did in the 1950s. The assembler was then just a mnemonic translator and that is just about what Erik must have been doing. With greater familiarity, you can probably code the damn thing in binary. But is that where we're all going?
i dont think we want to regress.
The point Brucee made and I tried to corroborate is that a good C compiler, not GCC, nor ANSI's C99 with their need to please more the designers than the audience, could provide most, if not all the optimisations one actually needs without making the language a burden to learn. And without slipping into low-level programming.
i agree up to a point.
In my long experience as a programming language hobbyist, I have yet to encounter a programming language more suited to this particular environment. It bothers me that the trend is away from here, towards extending the C language, where other languages may be better suited to the newer, larger, more complex applications.
i agree.
In other words, C covers a wide enough scope, from near as damn the bare-bone machine to sizeable applications. Once you exceed a certain level, it makes more sense to look elsewhere. I wonder if the GCC developers have evne considered redeveloping GCC in a language other than C?
some people actually wanted to write gcc in c++. God forbid. i dont want to be writing system routines with STL. the gcc steering committee have a majority of c++ programmers and they resisted it.
