On Aug 22, 4:59 pm, "Just plain \"Dusty\""
<RV_phi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hello again, Dan. The language you use depends on two things really;
your
> needs--in terms of capability of the describing language, and does the
> controller/device you want to use have such a tool set available for it.
Very much agreed.
> Getting/learning the concepts will take time...and experience. There is
no
> "best" language...there is only the best language for the application
you
> wish to generate. Some applications benefit from high operating speed.
> Some from high implementation speed. And some for easy ****tability
across
> previous chips or software versions.
In most cases, I think it's a waste of time to find the perfect
language for an application. There are usually a handful of good
choices. Once you learned a few languages, you start to pull common
approaches out. In your case, you want to program your SBC. You'll
only have a few choices once you've picked the platform. I suggest
learning a little about the most common choices and then use that as a
basis for choosing your board.
> C & C++ are high-level languages that provide many conceptual elements
that
> can be of enormous advantage. They can also obfuscate the underlying
nature
> of the target processor. In "the old days", that was a real drag. But
with
> today's fast processors and large memory availability, it's not nearly
such
> a big deal anymore.
Not exactly. C is a low-level language, specifically it resides at
level 1, where most modern languages are at 3 or 4.
Part of the difficulties people have with C is that there is very weak
typing, which means you can have part of your program write a number
and another part read it as text, or as absolutely anything else you
might imagine. Some of those non-conversions are safe because the
programmer may know it's happening. Others might be disastrous.
C++ still has weak typing, and in combination with an object-oriented
language a lot of people have a hard time making necessary
adjustments. C++ is very elegant, compact and logical. However, most
programmers are not. More modern object-oriented languages tend to
give up compactness for readability.
C was designed around Unix, and it is used to define most Unix-like
operating systems. It's a very good language for creating an
operating system, but not necessarily a good one for creating an end-
user application. It would make a very good SBC language, but you may
not want to deal with it because of the difficulties in learning it.
C++ was designed by Bjarne Stroustrup for use by Bjarne Stroustrup.
The way I understand it, he couldn't care less whether anyone else
could understand it. I still find Stroustrup's Annotated Reference
(ISBN 0-201-51459-1) to be the most understandable C++ book around.
You may need to read that paragraph ten times to understand what it
means, but once you get it you know what it is. Other references and
tutorials seem to spew miles of unnecessary BS in order to get to the
tiny pearl of wisdom inside. However, if you're not already a
programmer and/or you have difficulties understanding C and object-
oriented languages, you will get very little out of Stroustrup's
reference.
> > book on Amazon likened learning programming with C++ to learning to
> > ride a bike by first forging the bicycle frame out of steel. The
> > tutorials I read didn't seem all that uncomfortable, but are
> > admittedly only scratching the surface.
>
> Well, that's kind of a stretch. It's kinda like going to Zambia, so you
can
> learn Swahili. What do you try to learn first? Where's the bathroom?
Or,
> "So, how are all of you folks doin' today?" Eventually you'll want to
learn
> both...but that's not gonna happen on day one.
C++ is not a difficult language to learn, if that's what you start
with. A modern IDE will take care of a lot of the underlying
plumbing. The problem with C++ is making absolutely sure that what
you're typing is a reflection of what you're thinking.
> If you want to learn programming, I'd suggest a good compiler that comes
> with a simulator or debugger. That way you'll be able to make and run
code,
> in real-time, on your PC. Otherwise it'll take a target system and
learning
> lots of Swahili in order to get/make it work how you'd like it...(:-o)!
Agreed.
|
