Re: Pine 64

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Pine 64
Date	2016-12-29 13:28 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o42vfg$jvt$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<o3uqp5$2bo$1@dont-email.me> <d2f3ad19-0111-4062-8d14-77dd4fcf17c4@googlegroups.com> <o4190s$uhv$1@dont-email.me> <3685c981-98dc-413b-9efb-c3ecebc1bbf8@googlegroups.com> <o41dut$h8b$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/12/16 23:23, BartC wrote:
> On 28/12/2016 22:12, 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:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> But Linux == C for most practical purposes.

Really?  That will be news to most people who program in C, as well as
most people who program for Linux.  Certainly there is a strong
connection between the C language and nix-like operating systems, but it
is /very/ far from equality.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> If you had to distribute a source code app to run on Linux, the best bet
> would be C or Python. C if it had to be low-level or fast.

For the lowest level code, or the most efficient code, while maintaining
maximal portability - then C is the answer.  But you can get a lot of
portability with other languages as well as Python (though Python is
often a good choice) - Perl, PHP, Ruby, C++, ocaml, lua, Fortran, Ada,
Bash, and many other languages are reasonably popular and portable.

> 
> B64 is more of a problem since it's unlikely any random Linux system
> will have a compiler for it already installed.

It is unlikely that any system at all will have a compiler for it - it
does not exist.

> 
> But all the tools people have will be geared up for the mainstream
> languages (syntax-highlighting for one).
> 
> Introducing a new language has a lot of problems, even apart from
> persuading people to use it.
> 

Yes indeed.

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