I say it is spinach and to hell with it!
John Nall email (remove spam text)
Maarten Hofman wrote:
>> Modern ANSI C might be device independent to a certain extent.
>However, the C language was never intended to be such.
Well, we will probably just have to agree to disagree about that.
>> In fact, it is
>a glorified version of assembly, originally written for a specific
>type of processor. It has clear shortcuts (++ for "increment register"
>for example) meant to map directly on certain assembly instructions.
Irrelevant and immaterial. The C language is and was defined by the
book "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie. The only
concession made to architecture was to the size of the word. Most
certainly I will agree that they developed the language on a machine
which had a specific architecture (actually, I believe they had several
machines, but the architectures were similar -- at any rate, all were
Von Neumann machines). So what?
>> But even now there are various devices (I think most of the <18F
>PICmicro line falls into that category) that are not entirely suited
>for this purpose, and an implementation of ANSI C on these devices,
>though possible, would be so costly that an application written in
>that language would not run very well on them. A version of C
>specifically designed for such devices might be more suited, and maybe
>a language unlike C might be even more so.
You are agreeing with Olin, and I agree with Olin also. So we all come
to the same point, do we not?? :-)
In reply to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/io/serial/spis.htm?key=spi
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the