Hello,
See here:
www.open-std.org/.../C99RationaleV5.10.pdf
Is it possible that "Jack Sprat", the staunch defender of the C standard as the ultimate reference when writing programs, missed the following statement?
C code can be non-portable. Although it strove to give programmers the opportunity to write truly portable programs, the C89 Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler”: the ability to write machine- 35 specific code is one of the strengths of C. It is this principle which largely motivates drawing the distinction between strictly conforming program and conforming program (§4).
this is precisely what Per Westermark has been saying. Exactly what Erik Malund has been saying. Remember: Jack Sprat claims often that writing a program that complies with the C standard is a GUARANTEE for its correct functioning.
The C unfriendly architecture of the traditional PIC MCU makes things worse.
Although I am not a competent developer, and I am not good at explaining and illustrating, but it is quite easy to know that, people here will fail.
I am not able to do much to help people here. Because they are numerous, and in higher position.
Maybe Bill Gates or Steve Jobs can convince them, but Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson can NOT.
"I am not able to do much to help people here. Because they are numerous, and in higher position."
given enough time, they will move up the value chain and learn how to make the right compromises.
hopefully, in the mean time, we have moved onto something more difficult and more value-added.