🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:44:44 +1100, Chris Baird
<abuse@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > I mean, there were C (not C++) compilers back in the days of 8-bit
> > PCs with 64kB of memory, and while, yeah, they weren't as fancy as
> > the ones we have today, they did work and produced reasonably-sized
> > executables that ran a lot faster than BASIC.
>
>BDC C, Mix-C (that I actually have the disks for within an arm's reach..)
>
> > I've got to believe that a decent C compiler that requires no more
> > 1MB while compiling reasonably-sized programs would be entirely
> > viable.
>
>A 'decent C compiler' would need to do ANSI C at the minimum--
>structures, floating point, actual optimization, and really in this day
>and age, have the feature-sets that everyone needs... and you end up
>with another GCC (as the likes of LLVM, pcc, tcc, discovered.)
>And it would need ARM platform support...
>
>Also, don't forget the RPi has significant video capabilities as well,
>in line with its "21st Century Home Microcomputer" charter. (What made
>the Apple][, CBM64, and Spectrums popular..?) Headless embedded boards
>like the Choko/OLinuXino and BeagleBone are forgetting that when they
>push themselves as an RPi 'alternative'.

Well, it seems you have finally come to your point.  On the other hand the
RPi folks are targeting a bit different market segment than the others.
Maybe comparison in not appropriate, and may never be.  Then again the
others are shipping, so far the RPi is still promises and samples.

?-)