4 ms·

'C' is quite sufficient for micros and drivers. Micros are supposed to be small. Python's catching on with the kids for systems programming because of Arduino.

'C' is quite sufficient for micros and drivers. Micros are supposed to be small. Python's catching on with the kids for systems programming because of Arduino. Drivers are ... well, drivers. If you write 'C', you have to look at the assembly. And adding inline assembler to manage the hardware - caching, that sort of thing - is just how it's done. Maybe it's possible to make a library ( or a bunch of #defines ) that manages this for you? I really am sorry you have to use it, but there are rather large populations of people who go completely untroubled with it.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"And adding inline assembler to manage the hardware - caching, that sort of thing - is just how it's done. Maybe it's possible to make a library ( or a bunch of #defines ) that manages this for you?" The current ones might be like C on that part, might do something different. I haven't evaluated that. Here's a few: http://www.astrobe.com/Oberon.htm http://www.astrobe.com/Oberon.htm http://www.mikroe.com/mikropascal/# http://www.mikroe.com/mikropascal/# http://www.mikroe.com/mikrobasic/ http://www.mikroe.com/mikrobasic/
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Why is it we're not all using Oberon again? :) Ah, I remember having meetings about things like that... now that was inertia. SFAIK, ( meaning I don't really ) the various "Mikro" probably do the same thing that the native toolsets for , say PIC, do and simply add default, built-in symbols for bits in control registers and things like turning interrupts off/on. That keeps the amount of assembly further down. I feel confident in saying that because they'd want to make defection from the default say, AVR compiler chain as painless as possible. And of course, Linux drivers/ioctl() help a lot with bringing kernel mode things into user space. Using assembler in a driver is just one of those things we find acceptance with.
optforfon 10y ago
right, but once you start writing inline assembly it's no longer a "cross platform assembly" - and I think there is a demand for that. For instance the Linux kernel supports a mind-boggling amount of different architectures and "just write in-line assembly" probably doesn't cut it "large populations of people who go completely untroubled with it." Stockholm syndrome.... Or a lack of imagination about how things could be better. There really is a cult-like adoration of C - I think mostly by people that don't use it and learning it in college and long for something as simple
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  You forgot old people. I'm positively ancient :) I've used it for 30+ years. It's not the only thing I've used. But I've used it a lot, for deployed systems that Just Work(ed)(tm). They don't have a lot of UI, usually. You don't get "cross-platform assembly" in a complete 100% sense and get the enjoy the fruits of hardware diversity. An escape to inline assembly is PERFECTLY FINE. The Linux kernel doesn't use that much assembly. But yeah - "just write inline assembly" is exactly how it's done. And as someone who's done a few Board Support Packages for Linux and other O/S-es, it's not a huge risk - there's generally a port for a processor, so a small number of people write the inline assembly and it gets distributed widely. I don't think people who don't like 'C' should use 'C'. I don't like Java too much, so I pretty much refuse to work in it. I don't touch Web stuff at all, beyond a few weeks here and there. You have to use a pretty weird process to write robust and reliable systems in 'C' but it's not exactly difficult. It just takes... six months of knuckle busting most people don't have. Maybe three months. You have to smooth over learning some arcane rules. I think that the emphasis we see online on 'C' comes from open source, in particular the Linux kernel, and it causes this weird ...status rift to open and people fall into it. I'd been programming professionally for twelve or so years prior to even seeing Linux. In 'C', Pascal for a couple years before 'C'. I FIRMLY believe that 'C' is the mechanism to get the most reliable and deterministic solution to problems. Note I didn't say "fastest". But that's when I do it; after the last few years, there's enough whining about how bad 'C' is that I kinds shrug and say "hey, if it hurts you're doing it wrong. Make yourself happy." but I'm on teams with people who use all the fancy high level stuff and ... frankly, it's not my stuff that doesn't work. Because I've done this for 30+ years.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"And adding inline assembler to manage the hardware - caching, that sort of thing - is just how it's done. Maybe it's possible to make a library ( or a bunch of #defines ) that manages this for you?" The current ones might be like C on that part, might do something different. I haven't evaluated that. Here's a few: http://www.astrobe.com/Oberon.htm http://www.astrobe.com/Oberon.htm http://www.mikroe.com/mikropascal/# http://www.mikroe.com/mikropascal/# http://www.mikroe.com/mikrobasic/ http://www.mikroe.com/mikrobasic/

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Why is it we're not all using Oberon again? :) Ah, I remember having meetings about things like that... now that was inertia. SFAIK, ( meaning I don't really ) the various "Mikro" probably do the same thing that the native toolsets for , say PIC, do and simply add default, built-in symbols for bits in control registers and things like turning interrupts off/on. That keeps the amount of assembly further down. I feel confident in saying that because they'd want to make defection from the default say, AVR compiler chain as painless as possible. And of course, Linux drivers/ioctl() help a lot with bringing kernel mode things into user space. Using assembler in a driver is just one of those things we find acceptance with.

optforfon 10y ago

right, but once you start writing inline assembly it's no longer a "cross platform assembly" - and I think there is a demand for that. For instance the Linux kernel supports a mind-boggling amount of different architectures and "just write in-line assembly" probably doesn't cut it "large populations of people who go completely untroubled with it." Stockholm syndrome.... Or a lack of imagination about how things could be better. There really is a cult-like adoration of C - I think mostly by people that don't use it and learning it in college and long for something as simple

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
You forgot old people. I'm positively ancient :) I've used it for 30+ years. It's not the only thing I've used. But I've used it a lot, for deployed systems that Just Work(ed)(tm). They don't have a lot of UI, usually. You don't get "cross-platform assembly" in a complete 100% sense and get the enjoy the fruits of hardware diversity. An escape to inline assembly is PERFECTLY FINE. The Linux kernel doesn't use that much assembly. But yeah - "just write inline assembly" is exactly how it's done. And as someone who's done a few Board Support Packages for Linux and other O/S-es, it's not a huge risk - there's generally a port for a processor, so a small number of people write the inline assembly and it gets distributed widely. I don't think people who don't like 'C' should use 'C'. I don't like Java too much, so I pretty much refuse to work in it. I don't touch Web stuff at all, beyond a few weeks here and there. You have to use a pretty weird process to write robust and reliable systems in 'C' but it's not exactly difficult. It just takes... six months of knuckle busting most people don't have. Maybe three months. You have to smooth over learning some arcane rules. I think that the emphasis we see online on 'C' comes from open source, in particular the Linux kernel, and it causes this weird ...status rift to open and people fall into it. I'd been programming professionally for twelve or so years prior to even seeing Linux. In 'C', Pascal for a couple years before 'C'. I FIRMLY believe that 'C' is the mechanism to get the most reliable and deterministic solution to problems. Note I didn't say "fastest". But that's when I do it; after the last few years, there's enough whining about how bad 'C' is that I kinds shrug and say "hey, if it hurts you're doing it wrong. Make yourself happy." but I'm on teams with people who use all the fancy high level stuff and ... frankly, it's not my stuff that doesn't work. Because I've done this for 30+ years.