On May 22, 4:04 pm, "funlw65(Vasi)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my opinion, PMP is much better than mikroPascal, Thank you for the "much better", but even if it is a pleasure to read, I must say that this great commercial product is more accomplished, despite its closed libraries. > the only drawback of PMP being the absence of "dead code removal" feature > (the zone > where JAL shines, and the reason why is better to have specific > libraries instead of universal ones for PMP). Although, PMP is almost > as much as JAL in produced code size; but compensate with language > features. Somehow, I have the impression that JAL have better "dead > code removal" algorithms. This is not an impression. PMP has NO dead code removal algorithm since IMHO such feature should be done at the linker level if you don't want to do multi-passes. Unfortunately neither MPLINK nor GPLINK have such feature. JAL systematically compiles all the sources, does multi-passes and has its own assembler/linker so it may optimize whatever is necessary. PMP's philosophy is different, more simplistic like a good ol' dinosaur compiler: generation of one asm per source file then the assembler generates object modules then the link finalizes an hex file. Object modules (units) contains all the code. There's still a lot of work on this subject. I like a lot JAL's simplicity and clarity, but as a programmer I was fed with Pascal's broth in the baby bottle, so my taste has been set since a long... Best regards and keep going, Philippe. -- 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.
