Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rahil627 457 days ago
i share the same sentiment as you. why suffer writing C when one can enjoy the fruits of language features? it's certainly not optimal, but neither is 99+% of software nowadays. There's the feeling of waste and bloat, but the trade-off is language features!

on the other hand, nowadays, we can just generate C code using ai.. as long as the project doesn't get too big to grasp without abstractions. ;)

1 comments

And we only had ASM for microcontrollers in 1990! (Or mostly, I think C PICs didn't arrive till later). And the tooling was terrible!

I don't hate those languages or think they shouldn't be used, but I don't know how to use them and I already know Python, so if I can easily do MicroPython on a microcontroller, I welcome it :D

And we only had ASM for microcontrollers in 1990!

Who is this 'we' you are talking about?

Jovial and CORAL-66 had been compiling for various microcontrollers and embedded systems since the 1970s. In the '80s, Ada took over that space.

By 1990, the 8051 (probably the most common uC at the time) had several C compilers, PL/M, at least 1 BASIC compiler, a Pascal, PL/M and several more. Some of those were years old by 1990. There was at least 1 Modula-2 compiler for the 8051, but that might have been a few years after 1990.

Keil, IAR and Tasking went on from 8051 C compilers to write compilers for dozens of microcontroller targets by 1990.

There were C compilers from others for 8096 (multiple vendors), TMS320xx and TMS340x0 (TI), 68xx (Hitachi), ADSP-2100 (Analog Devices), and more.

Intel had PL/M compilers for 8048, 8051 and 8096. Gary Kidall ported a PL/M subset compiler to the Signetics 2650, if you want something really obscure. Green Hills had Pascal compilers for a couple of embedded procs (i960, anyone?).

Lots more I've forgotten.