▲ | klysm 14 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
The closer and deeper you look into the C toolchains the more grossed out you’ll be | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | acuozzo 13 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Hands have to get dirty somewhere. "As deep as The Worker's City lay underground, so high above towered the City of Metropolis." The choices are: 1. Restrict the freedom of CPU designers to some approximation of the PDP11. No funky DSP chips. No crazy vector processors. 2. Restrict the freedom of OS designers to some approximation of Unix. No bespoke realtime OSes. No research OSes. 3. Insist programmers use a new programming language for these chips and OSes. (This was the case prior to C and Unix.) 4. Insist programmers write in assembly and/or machine code. Perhaps a macro-assembler is acceptable here, but this is inching toward C. The cost of this flexibility is gross tooling to make it manageable. Can it be done without years and years of accrued M4 and sh? Perhaps, but that's just CMake and CMake is nowhere near as capable as Autotools & friends are when working with legacy platforms. | |||||||||||||||||
|