4 ms·
Ok, I see, thanks. I just read the descriptions on their website, didn't see any data sheets yet. Do you happen to know why they went away from Occam?
by Rochus 3y ago
Ok, I see, thanks. I just read the descriptions on their website, didn't see any data sheets yet. Do you happen to know why they went away from Occam?
- spacedcowboy 3y agoI mean I don't work there, I don't know what their corporate strategy is :) I would suspect it's just developer familiarity - they used to use a language they named 'XC', which was basically C with built-in keyword extensions (like "par" :). These days they've internalized it into a library [1] so it looks just like standard C, but you still have macros like PAR_JOBS... [1] https://www.xmos.com/documentation/XM-014363-PC-7/html/prog-guide/quick-start/c-programming-guide/index.html#lib-xcore-prog-guide https://www.xmos.com/documentation/XM-014363-PC-7/html/prog-...
- Rochus 3y agoInteresting, thanks for the link. It's a good question whether the CSP constructs should be part of the language or part of the library. If people don't like or know Occam, maybe Go (or TinyGo) would be an alternative.