> Supporting Arduino hardware could help in promotion of JAL - all > Arduino related stuff seems to be hot.
So support 2 main types of processors. I'm not sure what makes JAT's output different then JAL. Is it the processor type? or is it the C Compiler? In either case, you would be able to tell JAT what you are going to use so the output will be the same. > 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. Sorry, I am not the expert on this. > 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. Good syntax, readability, learning curve are all great features of JAL compared to other languages (mainly C), and are quite important. As for other features, JAL may have them some day. > 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. Why can't C backend use C libraries? I thought the output would be a C file to be later compiled by a C compiler. Procedures written in C could be easily added to the output, or even to the JAL code if kyle adds support. Matt. -- 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.
