2010/8/21 mattschinkel <[email protected]>: > I don't even think we need to concentrate on "many targets". One high- > power target family would be sufficient, and one C compiler. I don't > see the point in supporting more low power target chips. Supporting Arduino hardware could help in promotion of JAL - all Arduino related stuff seems to be hot.
> So, if Kyle is not willing to add 32bit support to JalV2 over time, > then we could continue with JAT. If we where to choose one C compiler > I think JAT could act exactally like JALv2. Leave the decision up to > Kyle, since he did not agree with JAT. Iirc he did not say he disagreed. He asked to consider the alternative of a C backend, which I did. Choosing either option does however have it's impact (compatibility vs maintenance), which seems to be ignored. >>But what is the major advantage to program in JAL in stead of Pascal or C? > The syntax, and jallib are the major advantages. Could you be more specific what of the syntax are a major advantage over Pascal or C++? It should justify the effort *and* the lack of features of these languages that are not in JAL. > Having a project stop because of a decision that can't be resolved > seems silly to me. This is not the case. We have two projects, both of which can be continued. It is however wise for each of them to consider the effort required and the result that can be achieved. JAT is my personal favorite, but dit does create an other 'JAL' branche and there is little interest in the result. The C backend is much cleaner, but don't think this will be successful due to the inability to use target C libraries and since I did not yet heard a clear advantage of JAL over C. Joep -- 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.
