Hello!

I just wondered, if there are any possibility to use D for microcontroller-programming. The reason I ask for is just because we get started programming microcontrollers in C (dunno which). So - as a D-fan ;o - it would be kind to use D instead of good old C. Afaik there`s only a OS-dependent compiler developed yet?!

Well, thanks for answers.

Alex

In article <cnapge$4lq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, alexander.panek@brainsware.org says...

>be kind to use D instead of good old C. Afaik there`s only a OS-dependent compiler developed yet?!

check here: http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D.gnu

Ant

Ant wrote:

>>be kind to use D instead of good old C. Afaik there`s only a
> OS-dependent compiler developed yet?!
> 
> check here:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D.gnu

Or here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/ <GDC home page>

Since D has a static runtime library (libphobos.a) and
has garbage collection and threading enabled by default,
it does produce bigger binaries than what plain C does...
(on the other hand, they are still smaller than with C++
if you also include the size of the shared stdc++ library)

--anders

In article <cnaqr0$6kg$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>check here:
>http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D.gnu
>Ant

Thanks for this quick answer!

Alex

alexander.panek@brainsware.org schrieb am Montag, 15. November 2004 18:37:

> I just wondered, if there are any possibility to use D for microcontroller-programming.

Depending on what you are going to do you might also have a look at: http://www.geocities.com/one_mad_alien/dkernel.html

Thomas

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> alexander.panek@brainsware.org schrieb am Montag, 15. November 2004 18:37:
> 
> 
>>I just wondered, if there are any possibility to use D for
>>microcontroller-programming. 
> 
> 
> Depending on what you are going to do you might also have a look at:
> http://www.geocities.com/one_mad_alien/dkernel.html
> 
> Thomas

Some posts are referenced here that involve D kernel discussions (included dkernel):
http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=420#420

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:cnattf$alj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Since D has a static runtime library (libphobos.a) and
> has garbage collection and threading enabled by default,
> it does produce bigger binaries than what plain C does...

That is true for small programs because the gc part of the library adds about 40K, but I don't believe it to be true for larger ones. In my repeated experience, D code is shorter than the equivalent C code, and over time this will add up as a smaller overall executable size.

Walter wrote:

> That is true for small programs because the gc part of the library adds
> about 40K, but I don't believe it to be true for larger ones. In my repeated
> experience, D code is shorter than the equivalent C code, and over time this
> will add up as a smaller overall executable size.

I should also make the reservation that I have only tried with gcc/gdc lately, and not the Digital Mars compilers dmc/dmd (could be different)

And a static library does mean less hidden baggage, than e.g. Java has ?
It's already smaller than C++ while offering similar features - and more

Just something to keep in mind, when comparing e.g. "Hello World" sizes
(my last count: Java* 764, C 9516, D 105524, C++ 430476. Bytes, that is)

--anders

* = not counting the Java Virtual Machine runtime or libs, of course...
    (C/C++ used a static library when linking, libgcc.a and libstdc++)

In article <cndr3i$1cos$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:cnattf$alj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Since D has a static runtime library (libphobos.a) and
>> has garbage collection and threading enabled by default,
>> it does produce bigger binaries than what plain C does...
>
>That is true for small programs because the gc part of the library adds about 40K, but I don't believe it to be true for larger ones. In my repeated experience, D code is shorter than the equivalent C code, and over time this will add up as a smaller overall executable size.

And it's worth noting that a runtime could be designed specifically for systems where multithreading and/or extensive library support are not needed.  Also, the garbage collector should probably eventually be buildable in both single and multi-threaded versions (probably not too much work with some version blocks).


Sean

In article <cne0nl$1k8u$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
>
>Just something to keep in mind, when comparing e.g. "Hello World" sizes (my last count: Java* 764, C 9516, D 105524, C++ 430476. Bytes, that is)

I've got a minimal runtime library for D that compiled "Hello World" to 59,420 bytes, and it should be possible to get this quite a bit smaller with some work.


Sean