| ??? 12/15/04 01:31 Read: times |
#83113 - Why do people use C? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I simply cannot understand why people install a very large (20MB or so) program to their PC just to assemble a file when a simple program that fits on a floppy disk will work perfectly. In PC terms, 20MB is very small indeed for a Program! But, as I said earlier, the 20MB does not just assemble a file - the vast majority consists of other "performance enhancing" extras. I find it easy to migrate from 8051 to avr, and even to PIC asm code in since I am familiar with assembly. But each of those assremblers has an entirely different instruction set; with 'C', there is only a small subset that's specific to any particular target. I just do not see the advantage to C programming, especially when assembly makes so much more sense to me anyways. In general, a High Level Language (HLL) - including 'C' - has the advantages of improved programmer productivity, and improved code portability. Of course, you will go through a less-productive phase whilst you're actually learning a new language, but once you get the hang of it you will see the advantages! 'C' has particular advantage if you want to bring in 3rd-party software, which is increasingly common these days: http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=82854 I disassembled a some 8051 C code I downloaded and a very simple delay loop wasted so much code space in C it made me wonder why people use C??? Most likely because it was bad 'C'; not because the language itself is bad - see http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=83067 Call me ignorant, I am one of those people that believe "if it ain't broken, DON'T FIX IT"! The main thing that's "broken" with assembler is that it is extremely laborious to write and entirely non-portable; these are the things that are "fixed" by moving to a HLL In my opinion, C programming is for PC programs. Definitely not true - most PC programs are C++ at least these days! There are definitely significant advantages to be gained in many embedded applications (even on the 8051) by using a HLL. I believe that assembly is the way 8051 was intended to be programmed If this were the case, why did Intel (designers of the 8051) produce PL/M-51 - a language at a similar level to 'C'? The 8051 doesn't care what source language you use - all it knows is binary opcodes! for someone to just learn 8051 C programming first, without fully understanding assembly can sometimes be very confusing. Now that is an entirely different point. Of course, you cannot hope to do anything efficiently in any language if you don't understand the underlying architecture! See http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=83067 and replies |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| asm vs C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HLL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| asm vs C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C and other HLLs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| modern - productive | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lunch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Speed writing vs speed running. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Belt or suspenders? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Learn C Then... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| beware | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This advice is great | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I love C !!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Easy migration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 3rd party | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Having recently started converting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Learning C for tte 8051 and 8-bit uC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Obviously there is a reason... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as to reasons | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Obviously there is a reason... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 vs C :) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 efficiency | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a 51 for handling large amount of data | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 vs C - answer is wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| addendum to post Andys above | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| asm.vs.C forever | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| click, click, click | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eh?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 vs C - answer is wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't believe all you hear! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the C myth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| myth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Then Don't Do that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why only? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Right tool for the Job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| asm VS C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Which C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Handly, But | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Both i think | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Neither! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler on a floppy? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why do people use C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Code Complete | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ironic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: asm VS C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re:asm vs C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| derivatives of same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| (non-)portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What do you want? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HLL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Personal dislike... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A comment to ASM versus C | 01/01/70 00:00 |