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 3663 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 11:59:08 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 May 2020 11:59:08 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id F03529C5E9; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:59:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E379C5E8; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:58:41 +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="LYFo8KRQ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id EC0759C5E8; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:58:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-yb1-f169.google.com (mail-yb1-f169.google.com [209.85.219.169]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6446D9C5E5 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:58:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-yb1-f169.google.com with SMTP id i16so4482716ybq.9 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:58:38 -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=rwd9OP+P+1xCJtQwptA6anrRE0O9TOFQIbR6skdoJuc=; b=LYFo8KRQbWaZT19akj7RxtzuZXRznOoSz+agpJoZO8T35jYQzVaNfPeCY77jVKBUIL UKLNZjdUt3lOJgZGlgdBBbYZ43DvW5OzjXuHDsviGsZ3IPE0KQ9ecGRqPzeSkOJsE7na SxY9oMOqD8ULFmr3Fmxydum+bmHlvt8/pFEuYb+2CbOI0tJsBUtEiFVrWj3HuWvdhgXw uk2ruv3FEo5TI2F+7qG8e5WI0Ojl3fUo7PE/lOsnDX2JhgZ15USeEu+6JeWcTZBXjE6v p8WRPjE5vykk9XnKqlpg2lq/9qJw6yA6CNIjFA5A5tZdaAwNggXlnHPU1wRGOS00dWHb 5PSw== 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=rwd9OP+P+1xCJtQwptA6anrRE0O9TOFQIbR6skdoJuc=; b=DGjmPl4d3keIXMFaCRpMtOGtEq5aQ1oe3xbNSOSEnAA/lZHhdCKNZT4v7AuBo/Qy1C D6okF1hJRxL2cKG36V7GHuAUfU6INAHvuTFK4qA9U8TbRmaAJf/Hg5ImDBozZdMZ/jgs LMpSa63v/Y5BNeX78kttxLiK249MC3w1wQDV7GVb2fS+RgMgP228O3fKSXFDjy1DURYX 4sh/qsu9IWthJRN/Ihu1/IKldMOedCV8eskGAutcciw+fc/giseFOsJYXamDlPoApF+t MqhjNf7cRHETyJ9z6GojqaDJ7R44iWkFWj4QLmI3a6vj5uo4/ffzeWWjndGUrQ4aYmd5 SfoQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533K6/d02eJG3kjSv936SrVKMXOzycb4Lpg6VkucmS8iTHC3VhJa JfKvbBJUAP/bpH5F7YiMFLiPTORvKrqwWPadW/Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcn4xFfjH82haHosk0TrCfQiz/eOOM62bJCbZT+9ZVSvrYgeDXwukhquu8l2R0DII6yYFjcIFwbBWqOvfEnSM= X-Received: by 2002:a25:c1c5:: with SMTP id r188mr22635388ybf.240.1590148717583; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:58:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200521182817.08C0318C093@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: From: "A. P. Garcia" Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 07:58:26 -0400 Message-ID: To: Tyler Adams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000739ff305a63b59e5" 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: Noel Chiappa , The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000739ff305a63b59e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, May 22, 2020, 5:52 AM 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? Is it because adding > a backend to gcc was free, C was already well known, and C was sufficiently > performant? > I don't know how much gcc contributed to the success of C in the embedded space. Microcontrollers are often programmed in assembly. They have memory and speed constraints, much like the PDPs where C began. I think it goes back to what Larry said about C being so close to the metal. > > --000000000000739ff305a63b59e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, May 22, 2020, 5:52 AM Tyler Adams <= ;coppero1237@gmail.com> wro= te:
<snip>
So, now Im curious about embedded systems. In my limited experience, ev= ery "embedded system" I programmed for from 2002-2011 had C as it= s primary language. After 2011, I stopped programming embedded systems, so = I don't know after that. Why was C so dominant in this space? Is it bec= ause adding a backend to gcc was free, C was already well known, and C was = sufficiently performant?

I don't know ho= w much gcc contributed to the success of C in the embedded space. Microcont= rollers are often programmed in assembly. They have memory and speed constr= aints, much like the PDPs where C began. I think it goes back to what Larry= said about C being so close to the metal.=C2=A0

--000000000000739ff305a63b59e5--