We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
I,ve installed the Compiler and I can,t get even the simplest code to compile properely.
Anyone know where the fix for this bug is?
Or is it a limit of the demonstration version?
void main(void) { cout << "Hello world!"; }
Ok, Mr Henry Ford wanted to make money but part of the dream was to give transport to the masses.
You do know about the dodge lawsuit, right? He was forced to continue to seek profit rather than divert it into more production to "help the masses." His dream was overrode by profit demands of being a corporation.
"I don't understand why there are some guys that are so negative about certain suggestions."
Trying to compile C++ with a C compiler:
I,ve installed the Compiler and I can,t get even the simplest code to compile properely. Anyone know where the fix for this bug is?
On receiving an answer that it is a C compiler:
Can someone answer my question in English please!
On experience with embedded compilers:
Why is the demonstration version so limited? It looks very weak! Microsofts free compiler can do so much more!
On receiving a good description of the problem, a note that the M$ compiler can't build for the '51 target, and that the C51 can't build C++ and that a trivial change to the code (to make it C code) would make the example buildable:
Someone give a more positive (and helpful) response please!
After having received a number of descriptions that C and C++ are different languages:
Why have a demo version that won,t compile my simple program?
After receiving a further note that C and C++ are different languages, and that a C compiler just can't compile C++:
Anyway, I need to know of alternatives and not just get you can,t do it style comments.
On the question: Can't you switch to C? Do you really need C++?
You make these comments without knowledge or appreciation of the requirement. My contract requires me to produce code for an 8052 controller board that has a keypad and a display. I need serious options please.
This implies that the chip 8052, or the keypad or the display is a direct implication why C++ is a requirement and not an option. It also implies that the answers you have received are not serious.
After receiving a number of notes that C++ are not the best of languages for the lowest end of microcontrollers, you translate unsuitable into impossible:
The general view from this forum is that C++ an the 8052 don't mix.
From then on, it's not meaningful to follow the thread anymore.
As you can (probably not) see, you entered this thread in a very narrow-minded way. The perfect way of entering a forum and ask questions...
It's becoming clear that I can write on the 8051 in C++
It's becoming clear now ? I mentioned that there are C++ compilers (not free, neither beer nor speech) in my posting yesterday. Along with the fact that Keil C51 is not a C++ compiler, and that what you considered a "bug" was actually a lack of reading and understanding the documentation.
It took a while to get through ?
void main(void) { printf("Hello world!"); }
This is a "C" Compiler not a "C++" Compiler. And no they are not the same thing.
It's becoming clear that I can write on the 8051 in C++.
No. It's become overabundantly clear that you believe you can use C++ on an 8051. Now that was pretty evident from the beginning, but that didn't keep you from stressing this point at every opportunity.
But if I can write an application quickly
If you can do it. But there has been negligible evidence that you really understand the task you're so convinced you're capable of completing. Instead you blame every failure of your attempts at implementing your ideas on others --- the tools, their makers, the people in this forum. Something and somebody must obviously be faulty, incompetent and/or "academic", as long as you can deny it might be your fault. In my country this attitude is usually summarized by an old adage: If the farmer can't swim, his swim trunks are at fault.
with the confidence brought about by using tools I know
... except that you rather evidently don't know the tools relevant to the job at hand.
then it should be worth the wrath of some forum members.
You're mistaken if you think what's being directed at you qualifies as wrath. It's more like commiseration, for now.
I don't understand why there are some guys that are so negative about certain suggestions.
Indeed, you don't understand. But you're wrong about what it is you don't understand. You utterly fail to grasp the idea that people telling you that your suggestions are bad might be doing so not because they're "negative", but because their experience taught them.
While pretending to ask a question, you really came here with a prejudice expecting people to provide arguments supporting it. But then something happened that you hadn't contemplated before: people gave you answers that disagreed with your pre-set opinion. Well, guess what, that's one of the consequences of asking a question: you lose the right not to have to listen to answers you don't like.
Wisdom comes not from asking questions, but from actually listening to answers.
"I've now noticed that IAR produce a C/C++ compiler for the 8051."
Note that it's not a full C++ Compiler - it's a version of Embeddeded C++
"Embedded C++ offers a subset of C++. It excludes size and/or speed consuming C++ features that are not relevant for embedded systems. Embedded C++ lacks the following features of C++..." For more, see www.iar.com/.../p7371_eng.php
I don't know how much that might "cramp your style" if you're used to a full-blown C++ compiler...
Interesting fact: When clicking on 8051 and looking at language standards, Embedded C++ is not mentioned. Only C.
When clicking on LPCxxx and looking at language standards, both C and Embedded C++ is mentioned.
Forget me for being stupid, but might a vendor who already have C and C++ support (even for 8-bit processors such as the Atmel AVR series) have considered the '51 chips not suited for C++ development?
Now, that would be shocking...
I don't know how much that might "cramp your style"
I'll get my own bias out of the way first: "Embedded C++" was really a political move. It was created by (in my opinion) a bunch of lazy compiler vendors. C++ is a *** to compile at all, much less do a good job. And a lot of people simply didn't want to try. So, "Embedded C++" is really more about excluding newer and/or more difficult to compile features, rather than any real concern over "efficiency" or appropriateness for embedded programming. (Modern C++ compilers efficiently implement just about all of the features EC++ excludes.) That's just the excuse by which the limitation was sold.
Besides, even if feature X were harmful in embedded programming, you could simply not use it. (Compare with, say, bitfields in regular C -- widely regarded as not worth the effort and unused. That doesn't mean we need an "Embedded C" standard officially excluding it to give the marketing guys an excuse...)
On to details, from the IAR website, though I've inserted numbers for reference:
Embedded C++ lacks the following features of C++:
1) Templates 2) Multiple inheritance 3) Exception handling 4) Runtime type information 5) New cast syntax (operators dynamic_cast, static_cast, reinterpret_cast, and const_cast) 6) Namespaces
7) The Standard Template Library (STL) is excluded 8) Streams, strings, and complex numbers are supported without the use of templates 9) Library features which relate to exception handling and runtime type information (headers <except>, <stdexcept> and <typeinfo>), are excluded
(1), which implies (7), is critically limited to a "real C++" programmer. There's nothing inherently bad about templates. Poor use of them can bloat your code. But then, poor use of #defines can bloat your code, for much the same reason. That's a problem with the programmer, not the language feature.
(2) exists for a very specific reason in the real world. If you're an academic OO purist and you always have full source for every scrap of your project, you sneer at MI. If, on the other hand, you ever use a commercial library as well as writing your own code, you're often faced with the problem of inheriting from two separate trees of objects. MI is the onlly answer. It's also quite useful in some specific idioms, such as the mixin or the "abstract base class" -- what Java calls an "interfere" and which they added back in after their single-inheritance OO purity proved impractical.
(3) Pretty darn useful in an embedded system to make sure everything gets cleaned up with things go wrong. A robust system in EC++ is just going to have to reinvent this wheel from scratch, and won't have the power of a language feature. Early implementations could be bloated and slow, but compiler vendors learned how to implement it and programmers learned proper idioms like RAII for its use.
(5) Pure bias against new features as far as I can tell. If you do away with RTTI, then dynamic_cast does you no good. But the other three are just the three uses of traditional C casts, and there's no reason from the compiler vendor's point of view that they're hard to support. The only difference is that the syntax makes the programmer's intent obvious, where "(typename)" is sometimes too powerful for your own good. Like I said, lazy compiler vendors.
(6) An incredibly useful feature for anything more than the simplest program. One of the biggest gripes about C was always its lack of depth in structure: you're either static and hidden, or public and completely global. Hence the development of coding tics like always putting Module Code Abbreviations in mca_MyFunc() to try to avoid clashes in the global namespace, and conventions about _symbol and __symbol to hide stuff needed in your libraries. Those are just a poor man's attempt to create namespaces that clutters the code because they don't have proper language support. Again, the feature is not at all hard to implement, but it was newfangled at the time and the lazy compiler vendors strike again. They didn't already have it working at the time they defined the EC++ spec, out it went, baby and bathwater alike.
(8) OMG! A feature you can actually argue is not terribly useful in the majority of embedded work. But then, it also falls squarely under Stroustrup's "don't pay for what you don't use" principle. If you don't use the complex type or a string, why then, you won't link in any of libraries, would you? Wouldn't cost a thing for people that didn't need it. (Did I mention I find the EC++ backers extremely lazy?)
Ok,
At the start I didn't realise about the precise differences in product capabilities.
But (contrary to some posters belief) I've learnt some things.
I now know that not only is C++ available it can also be practical.
What I find most bizarre is the attitude of some posters of this thread who assume to know what my precise requirements and desires are.
They then start bickering on about how limited Embedded C++ is etc etc etc.
Remember people, C is even more limited!
It is (and should always be) a case of using the tools that are most appropriate for the situation.
To those who have been helpful, I thank you.
To those who have been otherwise (and I would think you know who you are), stay in your box.
Did you try it out yourself, or did you conclude it from the advertisements of the compiler makers ?
If you had asked the question
"I want to program an 8051 and I want to do so in no other programming language than C++, please tell me which compiler to use.", this thread would have been about three or four postings long.
But you seem to prefer to keep everyone in the dark and guessing.
You also seem to like pseudonymous posters with a disposition to trolling more than people who actually post under their real name.
I believe you actually came here for fun instead of advice. Some people like ... heated discussions. Was it fun so far ?
"Did you try it out yourself, or did you conclude it from the advertisements of the compiler makers ?"
I have now downloaded, installed and successfully compiled a couple of simple C++ programs.
FYI, at the start of the thread I was (as I admitted) not aware of the nuances. I could not have been as precise as you think I should have been. But I have had a busy 24 hours and I think learnt a lot.
Heated discussions. Hmmm. I think an individual text area for a message is not long enough to describe my thoughts concerning some of the responses I have had on this thread.
Fun is definitely not a word I would use in this context!
FYI, at the start of the thread I was (as I admitted) not aware of the nuances.
Where did you admit to not knowing about the "nuances" between C and C++? As I read it, you expressed quite a lot of explicit irritation that you didn't got the "correct" answer.
Users with meaningful questions and reasonably polite behaviour do almost always get meaningful responses, and mostly in a polite way. The only irritating answers I use to see is a bit high percentage of bold-faced Please read the manual, which I think is too hard an initial answer and better reserved for repeat offenders. But people do get reasonable answers. If they expand their queries with more followup information, the answers are expanded to be more precise.
If a poster breaks his back to rub everyone backwards and complaining about stupid answers - because the answer wasn't the expected - then threads do go down the drain. You really entered this thread narrowminded and with a huge amount of attitude. Are you surprised at the outcome?
I was merely trying to point out the fact that 'experience' does not necessarily equal knowledge. You just happened to be the one who posted a particularly good example.
I'm curious - did you just pick a number out of thin air to try and make a point, or did you actually believe that printf() was at least 10k of code?
"Where did you admit to not knowing about the "nuances" between C and C++?"
He did finally admit it - Posted 20-Jun-2007 01:28: "At the start I didn't realise about the precise differences in product capabilities."
But that was after 2 days and several dozen posts of vehemently refusing to hear it!
Even now, he still doesn't seem to have grasped that the difference lies in the fact that C and C++ are different languages - it's not just a matter of "precise differences in product capabilities"!!
The interesting thing with printf - and you can see examples of it if you search this forum - is that the Keil tools are good at analyzing how you use it.
printf() can require linking of more or less code. In this case, you didn't actually perform any "formatting", so you got a minimalistic overhead.
The concept isn't new. Old MSDOS developers probably remember TurboC that constantly failed to print floating point numbers unless at least one floating point math function where referenced in the source. The MSDOS linkers didn't have enough information to know what formatting parameters that was used by printf.