Talk:Embedded C

Removing bad quotation

I'm removing the part which said A criticism is that EC is intended for use with 32-bit architecture instead of focusing on the big market of 8/16-bit microcontrollers.. If you follow the link, you see that it's (a) the usual "oh, C code is too big and slow for my sysem!" critisism, (b) it actually hopes EC will fix that and (c) the text is from 1997 and it's not clear that it's relevant thirteen years later. JöG (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the reference. While (a–c) above are true, the 8/16-bit complaint is there. I won't make that change. JöG (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

well, it's been almost another 3 years, I think we can remove that criticism now. At least the 8/16 bit CPU market is no longer the "big market", even in embedded systems. With 32 bit CPUs now available in 48 pin packages, I don't think anybody is reasonably expecting to use C in any flavor if they're still using an 8-bit CPU. If that's removed, do we really need a criticism section at all? Nerfer (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on 16/32 bit stuff

Managing to compile code for 32/16/other bits architectures is device specific, this is not EC specific. EC compilers for 8/16-bits architecture could emerge naturally depending on business demand. agr 21 July 2010

Comment on EC website not updated since 2002

Isn't it a sign of stability ? EC is stable since 2002, sounds good to me. agr 21 July 2010

No, it's a sign that the website isn't maintained anymore. If this really still is the official website, then that is a pretty good indicator that Embedded C isn't maintained anymore. No news for eight years has nothing to do with stability. Has anyone checked whether some companies still support compilers for it? – Adrianwn (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Apple's I/O Kit?

Apple's I/O Kit appears to be the most significant project using EC , and is currently maintained. c.f I/O Kit Fundamentals: What Is the I/O Kit? "[I/O Kit] is based on an object-oriented programming model implemented in a restricted form of C that omits features unsuitable for use within a multithreaded kernel." --April Arcus (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Embedded C . Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521152331/http://www.testech-elect.com/iar/extended_embedded_c .htm to http://www.testech-elect.com/iar/extended_embedded_c .htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101140055/http://www.tasking.com:80/resources/technologies/compilers/ecpp/ to http://www.tasking.com/resources/technologies/compilers/ecpp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025094812/http://www.ghs.com:80/products/optimizingC EC Compilers.html to http://www.ghs.com/products/optimizingC EC Compilers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)