Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!news
From: mnelson@vmsa.oac.uci.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: 48sx cross compilers
Message-ID: <26066088.15354@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 90 16:40:00 GMT
Sender: news@orion.oac.uci.edu (Network News)
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 24


	There has been some talk recently about the desire to have a
C compiler (running on a PC or 48sx) which can generate 48sx binaries.
It seems to me that this is overkill.  C has lots of features (especially
file i/o etc.) that would appear to be inapropriate for the 48sx.  I had
similar cross-compiler thoughts a while ago, but the language in my
dreams was HP's very own RPL (the stuff *on* the 48sx).  When I pick up
my 28s (no, I dont have a 48sx yet :-( ) I *think* rpl; thoughts of 
FORTRAN (the vogue language for us high energy physicists) never enter
my mind.
	It seems to me that there are two advantages in trying to make
an rpl compiler over a C compiler:  1) the users of such a package wouldn't
be required to learn C in order to reap the benefits (especially since they
already know rpl), and 2) it seems to me that it would be easier to implement
a complete rpl compiler; most likely a C compiler would wind up being a sub-
set of the language, which would probably p.o. the purists.
	So there sits my $0.02.  Given the choice between an rpl or C
developement system for the 48sx, I would actually prefer rpl.
	Other opinions?

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Matt Nelson, Physics Dept., University of California, Irvine, CA 92717
  (714)856-6496   internet: nelson@psroot.ps.uci.edu   bitnet: mnelson@uci
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+