ARM or x86 with FPGA emulator

[Linde]

Makes me think of http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/inside.html

[Linde]

Therein lies our differences in development style:

I mostly use Vi and Vim as a text editor, and use simple makefiles ( I want to find a simpler build system though ) with compilers like MIPSPro, PCC and Clang. I don't dare touch Windows development because I just can't take it. In addition IDEs are useless to me because they breed laziness. I also don't use C++ as I think it doesn't keep code concise and optimised.

Your development style perfectly proves his point, which seems to have gone by unnoticed:

The application developer use tools with modern compilers that hide all that.

Whatever you think of make, vim or whichever C compiler you prefer, you can't really argue against his point on their basis.

[Linde]

I'm using the same method and tools other people are using so there is no point other than my method is console based and doesn't have a GUI. I'm not using an ancient compiler: the oldest compiler I've used is from 2006 - and it works fine with the C 99 standard. An IDE is just a graphical front end with proprietary or compiler specific libraries which hinder portability... Tell me again how that makes a programme any better?

Why should I tell you that? Have I ever questioned that opinion? The original point (again) seems to have gone by unnoticed. I'll quote it once again, including some more of the context:

Regarding dirty hacks and not a clean architecture might be true but for almost anyone that is more or less a academic question. The application developer use tools with modern compilers that hide all that.

Unless you think that vim or make expose something about the CPU architecture that an IDE wouldn't, I don't see how your argument is at all relevant. You say that your development styles differ, I get that, but I can't really make the connection between that sentiment and the argument you were responding to. I'm growing quite content with the idea that you may just be blathering on without any purpose of taking part of the debate, though.

[Linde]

BTW, we had smoke develop in our server room due to faulty hardware. Turns out a hard disk cable had melted and shorted. It was a regular beige box though, so not exactly server grade hardware, and of the things I can think of that potentially catch fire, the CPU is pretty far down the list.

[Linde]

Maybe I'm not understanding your question, because I've been trying to answer it.

I never asked you any question. That could explain your struggle.

I prefer working with an architecture at a low level.

So do I. I say this as a fanatic vim user and shrugging towards the use of IDEs, my point being that vim or make don't somehow expose the hardware architecture in any more obvious way than an IDE like Visual Studio or what-have-you. Make sure exposes some higher level concepts of the build process, and vim is an excellent editor, but they say nothing about the hardware you're working with.

Nothing about the tools I use exposes anything

= my point. Thanks.

I treat C as more flexible assembler.

Surely you can't be saying that C is somehow more flexible than an assembler for any given platform? You know, what with an assembler normally supporting all the possible operations of the CPU, and C leaving you at the mercy of the compiler to decide what is a decent sequence of operations to represent your code.

Mind you, I'm not saying that a good C compiler will make bad choices in terms of optimizations. It will probably do an excellent job turning what is essentially more readable than assembler source into something that is sometimes faster and leaner than what would intuitively seem like the right way in an assembler. You can't really say that it is more flexible, though, in any other sense than that your code might compile for another architecture. It's very detached from the concept of assemblers, really.

[Linde]

I've been over this: Certified UNIX is different from UNIX in the descendant sense.

Yes, but "the descendant sense" isn't the kind of genealogy that the single UNIX specification treats as a qualifier. Certified UNIX is UNIX. UNIX in "the descendant sense" is some ridiculous qualifier you came up with yourself to avoid encountering any true scotsmen.