The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Steve Andrew"
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:59:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:59:33 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Robert Baer wrote:
> Steve Andrew wrote:
>> Parmin wrote:
>>> I am quite proficient to write in BASIC and PASCAL language,
>>> but I think to keep things simple I should stick to the
>>> BASIC language only. Am I right? or there is a simpler way?
>>> Would C language be easier to use? I dont know C language
>>> but am willing to learn if it is better for my use.
>> Generally, C will produce more compact code than most other compiled
>> languages, and will usually produce code that runs faster. C is also
>> more portable than some other languages. For embedded software, I
>> think C is one of the more logical choices, considering the low
>> level you wish to work with regarding on-board systems such as
>> serial ports, timers or whatever. If you have no problems with
>> pascal then you should find C an easy language to learn. I have no
>> axe to grind as over the years I have used C, C++, pascal,
>> assembler, and numerous dialects of BASIC. For embedded systems
>> work, I always use C, or assembler when I am forced too :)
> Well, the experienc i had with C was the absolute pits.
> Started with a number of unopened packages of the same M$ C
> compiler. Opened and installed one on a clean system and worked for
> about a month trying to get the compiler to work as advertised; there
> were serious bugs and more serious lacks of capability.
> *Three* times in a row; absolute crap; so bad that in each case one
> had more than sufficent evidence to sue millions for fraud.
> Code sections that did work had the following attributes:
> 1) C code to do a given function (text I/O and manipulation, screen
> manipulations, pure math manipulations, data manipulation with lots of
> HD I/O) *all* were longer code than the exact same functions compiled
> with a BASIC compiler.
> 2) C code to do a given function *all* were significantly slower than
> the exact same functions compiled with a BASIC compiler.
> 3) Reverse assembly of the resulting binary showed very compact code
> (tightest for loops and math) in the BASIC case; and was essentially
> impossible to follow for C binaries.
> As far as i can tell, FORTRAN also gives superior binary coding
> compared to C.
Are you talking about Microsoft Visual C++ ? DOS-Based C ? - DOS-based C++ ?
Do not blame the language for poor performance. One vendor's implementation
of C (or C++) may well be more efficient than another's. Libraries may be
more or less granular, and may or may not be written in assembler. If you
have been trying to do battle with Microsoft's Visual C then you certainly
have my sympathy :)
Each language has it's good and bad points, it is not always a good idea to
compare apples with oranges ;-> How many operating systems are you aware of
that have been written in BASIC, COBOL or FORTRAN ? - How many operating
systems are you aware of that have been written in C ? - C was/is primarily
a systems programming language
> BTW, this bullshit concerning "portability" is just that.
> "Portability" has always been the cry of new languages, and none of
> the portability drummers have ever met their claims.
C a new language ? - Interesting... As far as I recall it was certainly
available in the late 1970s. As for portability, try telling the Unix guys
that C is not portable. Correctly written C code is portable across hardware
platforms and operating systems provided the code does not rely on platform
or operating system specifics. Most C compilers will include a section on
> The *only* modern language that did not beat that drum and has the
> best practical portability is COBOL (!!).
I would not call COBOL a modern language. Grace Murray Hopper laid the first
foundations of COBOL in 1952. The initial specification for COBOL was
presented in 1960.
> Why? because one must first tell the compiler about the working
> Once those obvious variables are dispensed with, the actual *code*
> to do something remains the same.
> You want to say that COBOL is a "dead" language?
> Then why is it available with all of the GUI that anyone could hope
> to want?
I said nothing about COBOL being a dead language. Yes, COBOL is portable -
did I say it was not ? On the other hand, I notice a lot of programmers came
out of retirement to address Y2K issues as it seemed the more recent
generations of programmers knew little or nothing about Cobol - COBOL dead
?, no, just resting ;->
> ...And FORTRAN is a close (but less portable) second, in that they
> also did not beat the portability drum.
BTW Robert - Sorry my response was mailed to you directly instead of to the
group, I hit the wrong button :-(
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup