"Everett M. Greene" wrote:
> CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Anton Erasmus wrote:
> 
>>> You are much braver than I am. I would not even for moment dream of
>>> suggesting to develop a C++ compiler for the '51. The worst possible
>>> scenario is if they think it is a good idea and is willing to pay a
>>> reasonable hourly rate. I am sure there are people who would think it
>>> an intellectual challange to create a half usable C++ compiler for the
>>> '51.
>>
>> You miss my point - if they bite we have an open ended contract,
>> with the customer paying indefinitely for good hard work that
>> produces nothing relevant.  Any relevance to governmental
>> contracts is purely coincidental :-)
> 
> Let's be nice, now!  8-)
> 
> Are we thinking of Ada for the `51?

No, but if somebody wants to specify a development for it using
Ada, and is willing to pay for best efforts development of an Ada
compiler for it on a time + expenses basis, I would be willing to
tackle it.  No guarantees of success :-)  I suspect I could find a
subset (such as add/subtract integers) I could compile, but I
think that is the limit.

Would you rather have that compiler for a PIC?

-- 
Chuck F (c...@yahoo.com) (c...@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;  USE worldnet address!

In article <4...@gv.net>, Michael R. Kesti <m...@gv.net>
writes
>"Everett M. Greene" wrote:
>
>>"Michael R. Kesti" <m...@gv.net> writes:
>>> martin griffith wrote:
>>> >"The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry
>>> > is its continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering
>>> > gains made by the computer hardware industry..." - Petroski
>>>
>>> A more optimistic view is that an amazing achievement of the computer
>>> software industry is its continuing use of the steady and staggering gains
>>> made by the computer hardware industry to implement systems that computer
>>> users desire.
>>
>>The users want bloatware?
>
>Look!  More pessimism!
>
>Despite your opinions concerning their storage requirements, would you not
>agree that current operating systems and applications better suit computer
>users' desires than did their earlier counterparts?

No.... I don't use an OS for the vast majority of my programming. 

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <Za7Rc.350309$r...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.co
m>, R Adsett <r...@junk.aeolusdevelopment.cm> writes
>In article <3...@4ax.com>, 
>n...@nowhere.net says...
>> The spec has got all the right buzzwords etc. We have managed to stear
>> the client towards a more reasonable stance on many points, but where
>> we have unknowingly stepped on someone toes, it becomes much more
>> of a diplomatic game in stead of an engineering one.  It is much
>> easier to say that we believe we have found a typo, since no C++
>> compiler is available for the '51, than to in any way imply "What
>> idiot specced a '51 core and C++ as the language"
>That's sort of where I figured you were going when I suggested there 
>might be confusion by your customer between C and C++.
>
>I seem to have inadvertently ignited a small firestorm ;)  Sorry about 
>that.
>
>Of cource if you do manage to steer them to an ARM variant (as you 
>suggested in another post) then the question becomes if not moot, at 
>least less pressing.


Not really.... you still have to find a good C++ compiler for ARM. The C
compilers for ARM are still more efficient.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Saturday, in article <4...@gv.net>
     m...@gv.net "Michael R. Kesti" wrote:
>"Everett M. Greene" wrote:
>>"Michael R. Kesti" <m...@gv.net> writes:
>>> martin griffith wrote:
>>> >"The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry
>>> > is its continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering
>>> > gains made by the computer hardware industry..." - Petroski
>>>
>>> A more optimistic view is that an amazing achievement of the computer
>>> software industry is its continuing use of the steady and staggering gains
>>> made by the computer hardware industry to implement systems that computer
>>> users desire.
>>
>>The users want bloatware?
>
>Look!  More pessimism!
>
>Despite your opinions concerning their storage requirements, would you not
>agree that current operating systems and applications better suit computer
>users' desires than did their earlier counterparts?

Most 'computer' users have not got the faintest idea what their desires
are and get 'computers' because they think they should and do not bother
to understand what they want to achieve. Then end up with using them as
glorified typewriters, never using the high speed 3D rendering capabilities
of the graphics card, full stereo sound system, rarely play a movie, let
alone create their own DVD movie. Then there is the other half of the
other things that the 'computers' come configured with. That is even if
they could work out how to use them. Don't even get me going on why
next to none to the 'users' actually know about backups and recovery plans
for all their lost important documents and emails taht are mission critical.

-- 
Paul Carpenter		| p...@pcserv.demon.co.uk
<http://www.pcserv.demon.co.uk/>;        Main Site
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>;              GNU H8 & mailing list info.
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>;             For those web sites you hate.

> >The users want bloatware?
> 
> Look!  More pessimism!
> 
> Despite your opinions concerning their storage requirements, would you not
> agree that current operating systems and applications better suit computer
> users' desires than did their earlier counterparts?

Which users? Current operating systems hide port-level and
memory-mapped I/O features from me and force me to jump through hoops
to access them. Current operating systems are considerably less
deterministic than older operating systems, forcing me to jump through
hoops when I want to add some deterministic functionality to a
program. Current operating systems mostly force me to run the system
in an APA graphics mode, when most of my work could be better and
faster achieved on a 132x43 text-mode screen requiring a couple of
orders of magnitude less horsepower to move around than a
1280x1024x32bpp screen. Current operating systems load up a bunch of
tasks I don't want to run, many of which provide security
vulnerabilities. Current operating systems include built-in
applications such as web browsers that nonremovably include software
that is only used for displaying advertising and content-free eye
candy, neither of which I wish to allow on my computer. At least one
current operating system tries to force me to divulge to the
manufacturer where and when I am installing it.

If you want an Xbox, then buy an Xbox and rave about how its operating
system is perfectly suitable for its intended function. The audience
for PCs is considerably wider. You might as well say that all hammers
should be painted pink and come with a 90-foot line that can't be
removed, on the basis that many construction workers might find such a
feature useful.

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
> 
>> Despite your opinions concerning their storage requirements, would
>> you not agree that current operating systems and applications better
>> suit computer users' desires than did their earlier counterparts?
> 
> Which users? Current operating systems hide port-level and
> memory-mapped I/O features from me and force me to jump through hoops
> to access them. Current operating systems are considerably less
> deterministic than older operating systems, forcing me to jump through
> hoops when I want to add some deterministic functionality to a
> program. Current operating systems mostly force me to run the system
> in an APA graphics mode, when most of my work could be better and
> faster achieved on a 132x43 text-mode screen requiring a couple of
> orders of magnitude less horsepower to move around than a
> 1280x1024x32bpp screen. Current operating systems load up a bunch of
> tasks I don't want to run, many of which provide security
> vulnerabilities. Current operating systems include built-in
> applications such as web browsers that nonremovably include software
> that is only used for displaying advertising and content-free eye
> candy, neither of which I wish to allow on my computer. At least one
> current operating system tries to force me to divulge to the
> manufacturer where and when I am installing it.
> 
> If you want an Xbox, then buy an Xbox and rave about how its operating
> system is perfectly suitable for its intended function. The audience
> for PCs is considerably wider. You might as well say that all hammers
> should be painted pink and come with a 90-foot line that can't be
> removed, on the basis that many construction workers might find such a
> feature useful.

Excellent diatribe.  But, before using the pink hammer, you have
to send in the registration card (at your expense) and wait for
the manufacturer to agree.  If you attempt to strike a friend of
the manufacturer the hammer will explode.

-- 
Chuck F (c...@yahoo.com) (c...@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;  USE worldnet address!

"CBFalconer" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4...@yahoo.com...
> "Everett M. Greene" wrote:
> > CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> Anton Erasmus wrote:
> >
> >>> You are much braver than I am. I would not even for moment dream of
> >>> suggesting to develop a C++ compiler for the '51. The worst possible
> >>> scenario is if they think it is a good idea and is willing to pay a
> >>> reasonable hourly rate. I am sure there are people who would think it
> >>> an intellectual challange to create a half usable C++ compiler for the
> >>> '51.
> >>
> >> You miss my point - if they bite we have an open ended contract,
> >> with the customer paying indefinitely for good hard work that
> >> produces nothing relevant.  Any relevance to governmental
> >> contracts is purely coincidental :-)
> >
> > Let's be nice, now!  8-)
> >
> > Are we thinking of Ada for the `51?
>
> No, but if somebody wants to specify a development for it using
> Ada, and is willing to pay for best efforts development of an Ada
> compiler for it on a time + expenses basis, I would be willing to
> tackle it.  No guarantees of success :-)  I suspect I could find a
> subset (such as add/subtract integers) I could compile, but I
> think that is the limit.
>
> Would you rather have that compiler for a PIC?

There is a sort of ada port for the avr for avrgcc
http://avr-ada.sourceforge.net/
http://avr-ada.sourceforge.net/install.html

Might be able to cobble it on to sdcc for pic and 8051
but then just wait for Chris Hills usual diatribe
about sdcc :-)

Alex Gibson

CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> says...
>
>"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
>> 
>>> Despite your opinions concerning their storage requirements, would
>>> you not agree that current operating systems and applications better
>>> suit computer users' desires than did their earlier counterparts?
>> 
>> Which users? Current operating systems hide port-level and
>> memory-mapped I/O features from me and force me to jump through hoops
>> to access them. Current operating systems are considerably less
>> deterministic than older operating systems, forcing me to jump through
>> hoops when I want to add some deterministic functionality to a
>> program. Current operating systems mostly force me to run the system
>> in an APA graphics mode, when most of my work could be better and
>> faster achieved on a 132x43 text-mode screen requiring a couple of
>> orders of magnitude less horsepower to move around than a
>> 1280x1024x32bpp screen. Current operating systems load up a bunch of
>> tasks I don't want to run, many of which provide security
>> vulnerabilities. Current operating systems include built-in
>> applications such as web browsers that nonremovably include software
>> that is only used for displaying advertising and content-free eye
>> candy, neither of which I wish to allow on my computer. At least one
>> current operating system tries to force me to divulge to the
>> manufacturer where and when I am installing it.
>> 
>> If you want an Xbox, then buy an Xbox and rave about how its operating
>> system is perfectly suitable for its intended function. The audience
>> for PCs is considerably wider. You might as well say that all hammers
>> should be painted pink and come with a 90-foot line that can't be
>> removed, on the basis that many construction workers might find such a
>> feature useful.
>
>Excellent diatribe.  But, before using the pink hammer, you have
>to send in the registration card (at your expense) and wait for
>the manufacturer to agree.  If you attempt to strike a friend of
>the manufacturer the hammer will explode.

I would like to object to the use of the phrase "Current operating 
systems."  Linux is a current operating system that makes it easy
to access port-level and memory-mapped I/O, works great in 132x43 
text-mode, does not have a nonremovably web browser, and requires
no registration of any kind.

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:22:27 GMT, CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Anton Erasmus wrote:
>> CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Anton Erasmus wrote:
>> >>
>> >... snip ...
>> >>
>> >> The spec has got all the right buzzwords etc. We have managed to
>> >> stear the client towards a more reasonable stance on many points,
>> >> but where we have unknowingly stepped on someone toes, it becomes
>> >> much more of a diplomatic game in stead of an engineering one.
>> >> It is much easier to say that we believe we have found a typo,
>> >> since no C++ compiler is available for the '51, than to in any
>> >> way imply "What idiot specced a '51 core and C++ as the language"
>> >
>> >Luverly.  By contrast this points out, once more, why I am no
>> >diplomat and need buffering.  I wouldn't even think of the 'typo'
>> >ploy.
>> >
>> >Of course in certain circles this spec is an open ended license.
>> >It requires a compiler, which is not available, and therefore must
>> >be developed (at X units of currency per hour until done).  After
>> >this necessary preliminary we can quote the fixed price for the
>> >actual job.  The compiler development might be inserted by making
>> >the customer responsible for supplying the compiler, and if this
>> >is awkward we will undertake .....  The system will increase the
>> >critical buzzwords per page value.
>> >
>> >With proper verbiage you could even supply the totally useless end
>> >product in source form, after development on some fully featured
>> >and standards compliant system.
>> >
>> >I told you I was no diplomat. :-)
>> 
>> You are much braver than I am. I would not even for moment dream of
>> suggesting to develop a C++ compiler for the '51. The worst possible
>> scenario is if they think it is a good idea and is willing to pay a
>> reasonable hourly rate. I am sure there are people who would think it
>> an intellectual challange to create a half usable C++ compiler for the
>> '51.
>
>You miss my point - if they bite we have an open ended contract,
>with the customer paying indefinitely for good hard work that
>produces nothing relevant.  Any relevance to governmental
>contracts is purely coincidental :-)

Not in this country. If you are a smaller fish, then you have to stick
to the letter of a contract.  If the contract is vague and
contradictory, then it just means that one has to keep changing the
product and spec until they have something completely different from
what they asked for initially. 
The biggest problem with these specs, is that they do not contain the
actual requirements. They contain somebodies half baked thoughts
on what they think the solution to their problem is. Add some current
buzzwords to the mix, and you have --- "The perfect specification".

If you are a bigger fish, then such a contract is quite nice. The
legal department should then be twice the size of the engineering
department of course. The only problem with this, is that engineering
will still have the sort end of the stick.

Regards
   Anton Erasmus

Guy Macon wrote:

> >> vulnerabilities. Current operating systems include built-in
> >> applications such as web browsers that nonremovably include software
> 
> I would like to object to the use of the phrase "Current operating 
> systems."  Linux is a current operating system that makes it easy
> to access port-level and memory-mapped I/O, works great in 132x43 

Ahem. Linux does not give userland tasks IOPL by default. Therefore, it
requires me to jump through at least one hoop, no matter how large,
well-illuminated and conveniently close to the ground that hoop might
be. And I hope now you won't be telling me that Linux has the same
potential for realtimeness as, say, DOS?

I was quite careful in my choice of where I said "current operating
systems" (Note my qualifier of "mostly"). The only place where I think I
should have added "mostly" or "in the main" is the one part I've
requoted above.