Hi Joep, > Well... the data type size can probably be fixed. > But what is the major advantage to program in JAL in stead of Pascal or C?
If you refer only to free tools and their performance, Pic Micro Pascal support the same number of devices (or almost) but it lacks only at library part (this can be fixed). JALv2, is available also to other OSes than Windows. > Don't confuse JAL libraries with C libraries. JAL libraries are common > source files, while C libraries are pre-compiled. If you use > sourcefiles like jal-libraries in C too. No, I don't but I can discipline myself and use them as in C or Pascal, having in mind the portability of my sources: Limiting myself to have parameters only in functions/procedures, including libraries only at the upper part of the source, etc...making an easy life for the translator. A portable Jallib (and all applications which use it) is possible this way. The problem is, you make the same set of functions/procedures for every target, or adopt an existing set of functions/procedures? This is why I gave the example with MikroElektronika libraries - they have common libraries (at naming and parameter level) on different families of processors. Again: > But what is the major advantage to program in JAL in stead of Pascal or C? >From another point of view, yes, this effort is not necessary if there is not an explicit request. If you can do a better job in C or Pascal for that target, then all of this is useless. Vasi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
