OO languages
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: AVR BASIC COMPILER source code released
Next: ATtiny10
From: Phil O. Sopher on 3 Sep 2009 06:28 "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn(a)indes.com> wrote in message news:op.uzoduu0oy6p7a2(a)azrael.lan... > > People who are not comfortable with pointers haven't done enough assembly > language programming. > It is a mystery to me as to how recent graduates of Computer Science are vaunted as experts on computers, yet haven't a clue about the actual operation of a computer at the assembly language (or even machine code) level. Indeed, to understand the XOR subroutine for a PDP8, you not only had to understand assembly language (as it was so coded) but also had to understand the operation of Half and Full Adders. (You did an addition, and then subtracted the Logical And of the two input variables after that Logical And had been left shifted). This was much shorter than evaluating (A and not B) or (B and not A) Those of us who cut our teeth on assembly language find no difficulty in understanding the concepts inherent in any high level language, even those as arcane as LISP ("Lots of Infernal Stupid Parentheses")
From: Niklas Holsti on 3 Sep 2009 07:15 Phil O. Sopher wrote: > "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn(a)indes.com> wrote in message > news:op.uzoduu0oy6p7a2(a)azrael.lan... >> People who are not comfortable with pointers haven't done enough assembly >> language programming. ... > > Those of us who cut our teeth on assembly language find no difficulty > in understanding the concepts inherent in any high level language, even > those as arcane as LISP ("Lots of Infernal Stupid Parentheses") Hmm... I'll grant you Lisp, which in its basics has a close correspondence to machine-level structures and algorithms, but what about Prolog? There is quite a gap between machine-level concepts and Prolog concepts. On the other hand, few people seem to be taught Prolog, now, which is a pity. I found it mind-expanding. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .
From: Boudewijn Dijkstra on 3 Sep 2009 07:13 Op Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:35:49 +0200 schreef D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: > Niklas Holsti wrote: >> D Yuniskis wrote: >>> Andrew Reilly wrote: >>> ... >>> <groan> Stay away from Ada. It *really* doesn't seem worth the >>> effort! :< >> If that groan and warning are based on actual experience, rather than >> hearsay, it would be interesting to hear more about your reasons for >> saying so. > > Personal experience. The language is just too "big" and > clumsy. With good discipline, I think you can produce > applications that are as reliable as anything developed > under Ada *without* that burden. There have been several studies about that, though I don't have specific references. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Phil O. Sopher on 3 Sep 2009 07:55 "Niklas Holsti" <niklas.holsti(a)tidorum.invalid> wrote in message news:4a9fa556$0$6282$4f793bc4(a)news.tdc.fi... > Phil O. Sopher wrote: >> "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn(a)indes.com> wrote in message >> news:op.uzoduu0oy6p7a2(a)azrael.lan... >>> People who are not comfortable with pointers haven't done enough >>> assembly language programming. >> Those of us who cut our teeth on assembly language find no difficulty >> in understanding the concepts inherent in any high level language, even >> those as arcane as LISP ("Lots of Infernal Stupid Parentheses") > Hmm... I'll grant you Lisp, which in its basics has a close correspondence > to machine-level structures and algorithms, No it doesn't, but that's not relevant to my point which is that by understanding the fundamental operations of a machine it is but a small step to see how those fundamental operations are used to synthesize other machines. > but what about Prolog? As for Lisp, above.
From: cs_posting on 3 Sep 2009 09:12
On Sep 3, 6:28 am, "Phil O. Sopher" <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > It is a mystery to me as to how recent graduates of Computer Science > are vaunted as experts on computers, yet haven't a clue about the actual > operation of a computer at the assembly language (or even machine code) > level. Computer science is more "fun" when you define how you wish the computer worked, and program that model. Then someone like Symbolics comes along and makes a computer that actually does work that way. Then someone like Sun comes along and makes a computer that doesn't work that way, but is enough faster that you can ignore that... What was interesting was that the other half the lab in which the freshmen were wearing out the () keys of a collection of apollos had juniors hand wiring modules into a 4 bit (or was it 8?) processor, that then software emulated a 32 bit one, at an effective clock rate of, oh, maybe a hz or two. So in a way it eventually did all tie together, but the lack of initial pragmatism was a little shocking to someone who had grown up with small micros. |