Re: Re: Perl Vs C,C++

So, what language *would* you use to program a pacemaker? I'm not sure myself really, but I think I'd much rather go with a high-level language; C (and, even more, assembly) would be too prone to hard-to-catch errors for my taste for something like that. Perl may not be the worst solution after all. :)

--
mowgli

Comment on Re: Re: Perl Vs C,C++

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re3: Perl Vs C,C++ by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Mar 11, 2003 at 15:36 UTC
Most embedded development is done in C variants with a ton of ASM optimizations. A lot is done in ASM, too. The problem with high-level languages is that the first assumption is that resources are plentiful. Embedded devices do not have plentiful resources. In fact, they are the last bastion of the C-64 type of development, where your "data" might also have "instructions", just to squeeze a few more bytes or milliseconds. ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement. Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Perl Vs C,C++ by data64 (Chaplain) on Mar 11, 2003 at 13:24 UTC
So, what language would* you use to program a pacemaker?* When you start talking about embedded devices, your choices are very limited. I suspect a lot of embedded device development is done in C/C++ or assembly. Just a tongue-tied, twisted, earth-bound misfit. -- Pink Floyd	[reply]