Nahhh, that's why they make them big hard drives, cheap RAM and lota CPU cycles in not much time.
A good compiler should generate safe and reliable code. Its not all about executable size these days. No mater how good we are, we all make mistakes and if the compiler can prevent that, then I am happy to sacrifice a bit of memory.
Can you call into the windows api with Pascal, or is it an older version? Its been some time since I wrote any Pascal :) All you need is to use the kernal32.dll functions CreateFile and ReadFile to get access to the serial port, and these all work a treat. You can dl the MS SDK to get all the structures and the doco is freely available on the net.
A lot of people don't realise how easy it is to talk to hardware on the modern MS OS's.
I hated waiting for the output in the 1970's, I still hate waiting for the output today. I don't care that its only 10 seconds for the spreadsheet to redraw the graph, its 10 seconds I could have spent in my garden!
I agree but I don't think there has ever been a proof that "safe and reliable" means "large and slow". I'd bet that the proof would be the other way around.
Thats why I like range checking. Even today I still make "fence post" errors[1] from time to time.
[1] For others reading along: How many fence posts do you need to make a
100 foot long fence if you put the posts every 10 feet.
Yes you can do Windows API from Pascal. The actual API call is unchecked by any of the range checking etc. Since I am using Linux, calling Windows APIs is not usually an issue.
I have a much easier way to do it. I just say "Misha, write a program that ...". He does the windows stuff. Right now I'm busily writing 8051 code.
So may claim that there are no "modern MS OS's", but I would never say such a thing even though you gave me such an obvious straight line.
So your ignorance is the reason XP is faulty? How come Misha cant solve your serial port problem?
We have two camps at work. Linux and MS. The linux programmers all say "I would never use windows" the MS programmers say "who gives a f*ck, whatever does the job and whatever pays my bills".
The other day, we get new proto embedded PC to work with. There is only one at this stage. One of the windows guys loads up XP, puts some software on it, voila, away she go's. All we had to do was load on the sound drivers. We show the business manager who is over the moon. All working in a couple of hours. Yay. Then the business manager says "Great, i get this other app put on it so we can test that too". And I go, "Hang on a tick, you cant, its linux". Much to and fro and I finally get him to understand that it is completely different.
Anyway, so he takes it to the Linux guys who in there infinite wisdom trying to install linux have dome some wierd shit in the bios and have managed to completly f*ck the prototype. I fail to understand how someone can so completly screw up such a simple task. And these guys are by no means stupid, in fact some of them are the smartest c++ guys i have met. Yet they continually seem to do this.
Now at the end of the day, the business manager who fails to undertand basic computing and OS's sees now that there is 2 things, linux and windows. Windows is up and running in a couple of hours, and linux has completly f***ed the only prototype. Which projects is he going to approve in the future?
So at the end of the day, because I can get shit done faster on Windows, and I can produce an end product that works just as well on windows (in fact, it actually works period), and because the business manager is going to approve my project, why the hell would i not use windows? To me it makes commercial sense to use it. Perhpas that will change in the future, i dont know. But I am struggling at this stage to actually think of a useful task for linux.
And before anyone says hardware, The proto we have is based on one of those geode style processors. IT cost less than AU$1000 for a 700mHz pentium, boxed with 512mB or RAM, 4MB of NVRAM a 20gig Laptop HDD (can be fitted with a FLASH card for greater reliability). It has sound, video, serial, parallel plus 8 FO ports. IT also has a couple of USB ports.
The neares equiv. in house that linux guys use is a 100Mhz processor, less flash (16mB IIRC), less ram, less NVRAM, less FO ports, same numer of Serial and USB ports, and no printer port, no sounds and no video. The cost is $1300.
Damn, i must have read this wrong. Your MSwindows people are working on 700 MHz rated machines, and your Linux people are working on 100 MHZ machines? And yet you are troubled that the Linux people are forced to audition less competent products with that large of disadvantage? Give the Linux people equivalent resources and see if the difference remains.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Schiller
You did read wrong. Given the same peice of hardware, the result was, windows proofed in several hours, linux never proofed. I can further say that the Linux application in this case actually runs on a PC, not the 100Mhz device.
Given the cost, the 100Mhz custom designed embedded piece of hardware that couldnt run windows was the same price as the 700Mhz custom designed piece of hardware that could run windows. And the 700mHz device could also do more. So then hardware was not an issue when deciding on OS.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.