gnupic@linuxhacker.org

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 05:38:32PM -0700, Mark Gross wrote:
> On Sunday 04 May 2003 16:47, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> > I'm just thinking that the gputils group may be able to use JAL as a
> > kinder, gentler intro to PIC programming. A lot of times speed isn't the
> > issue in getting a job done, but how simply the job can be specified in
> > code.
> >
> > I do think that JAL would need at the very least an autoconfig file to
> > simplify installation. Amazingly enough Wouter has the project as a single
> > 13K line C file. Also I guess that adding some sort of gpsim support would
> > probably be next on the support list.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> 
> um,  
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/jal

That's progress. I hadn't checked that site in a couple of months. The
release is recent. And I'm quite happy to see that Craig Franklin is on
the JAL team over there as he's one of the primary motivators of gputils.
The split up source and autoconfig is cool too. I guess this is where I'd
have to send my include alias patch.

But it still doesn't address my fundamental question. A significant part
of gputils power is a single package that integrates a set of tools that
work well together. I'm well aware that not everyone will need a high
level language. But I think that it would be quite effective if gputils had
a high level language bundled that worked seamlessly with the linker and
the simulator so that it could be used as a substitute for gpasm.

In fact I somewhat think that having a separate project may cause some
serious syncronization issues down the road.

It just seems like a good idea on the surface. I guess I'm wondering if there
is anything significant that I'm missing.

BAJ