Hi All, For what it's worth: I share Rob's view on this. A bootloader is a tool that is related to the chip, not the programming language. The argument that it is automagicly ported to new devices is not accurate. It assumes that all required libraries are ported to new devices. And if there is a new device on which all libraries work, the bootload will as well.
Or to put it the other way around: if someone has put a lot of effort in creating a small bootloader in assembler that works on a large range of chips, continues to support this and has multi-platform host programs, what would be worth the effort required to develop of a new, larger bootloader that will probably not support any extra devices? Joep 2009/11/30 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]> > > Hi William > > William wrote: > > On Nov 29, 3:32 pm, Rob Hamerling <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ad 1: useless to discuss it further without proper arguments > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > I'm sorry you don't find this discussion useful. I'll try and improve > > it. > > I said 'without proper arguments'. And so far I have not heard one > decisive argument why a special "Jal bootloader" would be needed. I > don't consider "prove that you can write a bootloader in Jal" as a good > argument: who needs such proof? > > Regards, Rob. > > > -- > Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/) > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jallib" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<jallib%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
