From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 31140 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 11:15:55 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 May 2020 11:15:55 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6C30A9C872; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:15:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D639C5E8; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:15:35 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Jjr1eJ4w"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D5A4C9C5E8; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:15:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f180.google.com (mail-lj1-f180.google.com [209.85.208.180]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 319299C5E5 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:15:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f180.google.com with SMTP id m12so9755493ljc.6 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:15:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3Tim6dC5gBWCemLITZZuZUMMREizBxGcW5yA/Tt/Jho=; b=Jjr1eJ4wpqcXIlBgG+//dSRf6D5BBReeZdCeE3H0GyYiDaPAu2jYZc18G9n37uuCoU w3JYr9+RqdaGcC1Ph5NG0h5nV3m45DHTWvJq3sFzv7rzQlGhZyRKMFXIbjM8SqZKRiZ0 zTpYzhGqvPA/VI2wHCnmaJ1d1GeAsNWxmcAuvydJKqYKrtbLsl8+z4qbeoqYQrLBYd5e 6r6NHCsG7kNvD6YntxfubpwdQYIQxf72qWcQpUlWVGvfta8R7pdfxEpd+2s/+fdkV77k MgpO5IrZj5+wuYxXzNANqXWv91cqtp8qTbx7adqjLdaDV0LCnLbG6Ql9swyOItrwYniO PU7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3Tim6dC5gBWCemLITZZuZUMMREizBxGcW5yA/Tt/Jho=; b=a0gvF7pJKSHgLGWdB7BfRNDuwU0gm3gbsfnCiOvmWIoURX3/9gUAOVG6Xf3sltyCZd /oThrsOzPUlIml8Ckd0fKlfZjjra3j18chqBsAVmbvwQg6FKKrGSuAxpTz3oKC60azPl gInRZA4IT8IesXVVZggWvrsx473vmlYIuUsaUnBl+YQ3LqeckKeF/HydnCaHzVyQBvw+ dNSdkZ9IbTD6rzscKnN8sdUlQDWFUrCzuw8WijVvpR3J0+9NBBUaVCqrBucYtGaoBTFz uEeyQQMCS1rGZ/ho4SEAfsEqPf1xHnL+Jf0qFmAuAVIEVIbrj53W0wKgQl0oF8V39cUk oVzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314ntyYLTUN/xgHXmHdyFMvn7zM+DVLjtbJZZ+gPtjltBOKawNM 3tB3BBpgKevYeg5cdMDKrElFSPrsboxoYkIImX/BpVM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXuCNixyo6gvDI/WUgjmvhqUxAxpXWxCFdwjeESOqdSZQpT60Br2ep2WvQkii6lIutlxIJT7geQqnqq6rtIdw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:228:: with SMTP id z8mr7078480ljn.202.1590146130527; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:15:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200521182817.08C0318C093@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <202005221109.04MB92D3016090@freefriends.org> In-Reply-To: <202005221109.04MB92D3016090@freefriends.org> From: Tyler Adams Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:18 +0300 Message-ID: To: arnold@skeeve.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000404a9c05a63abf14" Subject: Re: [TUHS] History of popularity of C X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000404a9c05a63abf14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Doesn't C++ also generate tight code and is fairly close to the metal? Today C++ is the high performant language for game developers and HFT shops. But, I never found it on any of these embedded systems, it was straight C. Tyler On Fri, May 22, 2020, 14:09 wrote: > Tyler Adams wrote: > > > So, now Im curious about embedded systems. In my limited experience, > every > > "embedded system" I programmed for from 2002-2011 had C as its primary > > language. After 2011, I stopped programming embedded systems, so I don't > > know after that. Why was C so dominant in this space? > > First of all, because C is the (almost) perfect language for embedded > systems - tight code generated, language close to the metal, etc. etc. > > > Is it because adding > > a backend to gcc was free, C was already well known, and C was > sufficiently > > performant? > > Cygnus Solutions (Hi John!) had a lot to do with this. They specialized > in porting GCC to different processors used in embedded systems and > provided support. > > Arnold > --000000000000404a9c05a63abf14 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Doesn't C++ also generate tight code and is fair= ly close to the metal? Today C++ is the high performant language for game d= evelopers and HFT shops.

But, I never found it on any of the= se embedded systems, it was straight C.

Tyler

On Fri, May 22, 2020, 14:09 <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
Tyler Adams <coppero1237@gmail.com> wro= te:

> So, now Im curious about embedded systems. In my limited experience, e= very
> "embedded system" I programmed for from 2002-2011 had C as i= ts primary
> language. After 2011, I stopped programming embedded systems, so I don= 't
> know after that. Why was C so dominant in this space?

First of all, because C is the (almost) perfect language for embedded
systems - tight code generated, language close to the metal, etc. etc.

> Is it because adding
> a backend to gcc was free, C was already well known, and C was suffici= ently
> performant?

Cygnus Solutions (Hi John!) had a lot to do with this. They specialized
in porting GCC to different processors used in embedded systems and
provided support.

Arnold
--000000000000404a9c05a63abf14--