Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #100505

Re: Pine 64

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/12/16 23:12, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 8:59:42 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
>> On 28/12/16 19:10, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>>> That's the way it's going to go. Those devices will be embedded
>>> everywhere, except in mass-market electronic products where you have
>>> to shave every cent off the hardware costs, and there will
>>> still be a market for very restricted processors.
>>>
>>
>> There is a very big gap between using a ready-made Linux ARM board and 
>> penny-counting hardware designs.  Boards like this are useful in small 
>> production runs, systems where time-to-market is of overwhelming 
>> importance, prototypes, and systems put together by amateurs (of which 
>> there are a great many).
>>
> So quite a lot. As the price falls, they become more and more the
> system of choice. As long as standards stick.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about - it would
make sense for you to simply accept that and drop the subject.  This is
not the place for details, especially as you have shown yourself
incapable of understanding similar issues in the past.

But just as a hint, there are embedded linux boards available for as
little as $10.  There are microcontrollers for $20 that have less than a
thousandth of the memory, and only a few percent of the processing
power.  Yet such microcontrollers sell in larger quantities than such
embedded Linux boards.  So either the entire electronics design and
production industry across the world are idiots, or there is more to
this topic than you understand.  Which do you think is more likely?

>>> It's a great opportunity to establish B64. The question is exactly
>>> how to define a 64 bit near-subset of C.
>>>
>>
>> No, it is not.  I am not sure what you think the market for B64 is, if 
>> even /you/ think there would be use for it anywhere.  But these sorts of 
>> boards are programmed in C, or using high level languages such as 
>> Python, Ruby, etc., depending on the type of application.
>>
> Virtually all the boards run embedded Linux, so you can say there is
> no room for a competitor there - Linux is the established standard,
> it does the job, you'd have to come up with something radically 
> better to compete.

There are lots of embedded boards running different systems - though
most that are 64-bit run Linux (either as "real" Linux, or as Android).

> 
> But we've got the opposite situation with languages. A long list.
> Which means that its high time something like B64 came along and
> provided a scaleable, interface-friendly, standardised method
> of programming computers.
> 

Most people see it as an advantage that there are a wide range of
programming languages to choose from, as different languages have their
strengths and weaknesses.

You, apparently, see it as a disadvantage.  And your grand solution for
your invented problem is ... wait for it ... to invent a /new/ language!
 And this vapourware language that exists only as vague ideas in your
own mind, is to be a new version of "B" - a language that only really
existed for about 2 or 3 years, nearly 50 years ago, before being
superseded by C.  But B64 will be the "scalable, interface-friendly,
standardised method of programming computers"!

You don't lack in ambition for your language, even if it lacks
everything else.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-27 23:44 +0100
  Re: Pine 64 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-27 22:54 +0000
    Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-28 00:41 +0100
      Re: Pine 64 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-28 12:14 +0000
    Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-28 13:39 +0100
      Re: Pine 64 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-28 12:45 +0000
        Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-28 14:02 +0100
          Re: Pine 64 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-28 10:11 -0800
            Re: Pine 64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-28 10:50 -0800
            Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-28 22:55 +0100
              Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 12:21 +0100
                Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-29 21:38 +0100
                Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 10:10 +0100
            Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-28 21:53 +0100
            Re: Pine 64 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-28 19:54 +0000
  Re: Pine 64 Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-27 18:03 -0500
    Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-28 00:36 +0100
      Re: Pine 64 Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-27 18:44 -0500
        Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-28 00:54 +0100
  Re: Pine 64 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-28 11:27 +0100
    Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-28 12:10 +0100
      Re: Pine 64 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-28 12:59 +0100
  Re: Pine 64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-28 10:10 -0800
    Re: Pine 64 supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-29 08:30 -0800
    Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 13:22 +0100
      Re: Pine 64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 07:47 -0800
        Re: Pine 64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-29 17:03 +0000
      Re: Pine 64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 04:50 -0800
        Re: Pine 64 Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-12-29 21:25 +0800
      Re: Pine 64 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-29 09:28 -0800
      Re: Pine 64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-29 14:22 +0000
    Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 13:28 +0100
    Re: Pine 64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-28 14:12 -0800
      Re: Pine 64 BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-28 22:23 +0000
      Re: Pine 64 Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 18:43 +0000
    Re: Pine 64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-28 21:59 +0100
    Re: Pine 64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-12-28 23:43 +0100
    Re: Pine 64 jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2016-12-28 22:56 +0000
      Re: Pine 64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-28 16:00 -0800
        Re: A programming language called 'B64' Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-30 16:08 +0100

csiph-web