Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uvacs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
From: rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Targeting C for dedicated processors
Message-ID: <213@uvacs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Feb-86 12:59:29 EST
Article-I.D.: uvacs.213
Posted: Sun Feb 23 12:59:29 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Feb-86 07:13:05 EST
References: <36@se-sd.UUCP> <251@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: U.Va. CS in Charlottesville VA
Lines: 28

> >Any implementation of C that doesn't provide redirection and command-line
> >argument passing is half-assed at best.
:
> The above comment implies that a computer that doesn't have command
> lines and files "is half-assed at best".  Most of the computers one uses
> do not have these features.  For example, the computer in my VCR, my
> terminal, my microwave, my thermostat, etc.  I would be willing to bet
> that none of these is currently programmed in C, but it would be
> possible for C to be used.
> -- 
>     Barry Margolin

No, I don't think that the above statement has any implication about machines;
just implementations of C.  Should we pare the language so it will fit the
lowest-common-denominator system?  I hope not; I program for time-sharing
systems.  I've never written a microwave oven controller.

And if you are developing oven controllers on time-sharing system (certainly
you're not going to develop them directly on the chip), do you really want a C
compiler that breaks on almost every other program written?

It's one thing to avoid using features of C and its usual libraries for the
sake of a specific application, but it's another to kludge them back in if
they're not there.
-- 

Ray Lubinsky		   University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
			   UUCP: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl OR cbosgd!uvacs!rwl