A concept of a new PL for embedded applications

Nigel Goodwin said:

You mean just like existing languages?

Click to expand...

I mean like in existing assemblers but with greater support from the tool.

May be I did not express my idea well, this language is not going to compete with HLLs. There are plenty of excellent HLLs and they are good as far as generated code fits the hardware constraints. It will be competing with assemblers and can be thought as an object-oriented macro assembler with initially 'zero' assembler part. MCU specifics will be provided by a pluggable on demand MCU model defined in terms of the language and available in sources.

Nigel Goodwin said:

- but I thought the whole reasoning behind this was because you weren't prepared to do so?.

Click to expand...

The reason behind is my dissatisfaction of assemblers and HLL compilers for a very constrained hardware.

Get it written then, and you should be able to find beta testers on here!.

Nigel Goodwin said:

Get it written then, and you should be able to find beta testers on here!.

Click to expand...

I am moving in toward to this. What I am afraid of is to endup writing something that that looks cumbersome and fuzzy to other people.

Papabravo said:

I think to make your argument, you need to document and explain the three examples that drove you to this proposal.

Click to expand...

I have added more description to my examples, please find them on this link

Hutorny said:

The tool language (e.g. evolution of macro) will not be MCU specific and could be similar to JAVA.
The devcie language (instruction set, registers, perifery) will be (and must be) device specific.
The devcie language will be defined it terms of the tool language and that's the core idea of the proposed language.

Click to expand...

It's not the core. It's one of at least two cores. You are trying to solve at least two independent problems at once.
1) Making the language independent of an assembly language while making it configurable to specific processors.
2) Designing the language to support your preferred styles of interfacing.

tkbits said:

It's not the core. It's one of at least two cores. You are trying to solve at least two independent problems at once.
1) Making the language independent of an assembly language while making it configurable to specific processors.
2) Designing the language to support your preferred styles of interfacing.

Click to expand...

Yes, you right, examples I gave based on my preferred style. However, it is not a design yet. It is just a way to express my thoughts.
I hope, by the time I start designing, I'll find some associates and some opponents who would help me seggregating my preferred style out of the language design.