How are Development Kits for portables made?

[10$man]

------

I understand what you mean, but I still am sure that I said it exactly how I meant it.
I am not talking about C.
I am talking about a language that is based of C.
Thus the Compiler would not a be a C compiler.
Since we don't know what language it is, we only know that it's based of C, it would be logical to say a C based compiler.
A Compiler based of C would be just as acceptable because we're not talking about a specific compiler.



I know your a smart person, and I don't think this argument is of much use to either of us. I feel like your just misunderstanding what I am trying to say.

[Xian Nox]

Since we don't know what language it is, we only know that it's based of C, it would be logical to say a C based compiler.

I got what you mean, but I think it would be more accurate to call it an unknown C-based language compiler.

[Nickolas]

This thread is becoming a bit funny I think he means a language with the same syntax/grammar with C. A brand new language.

[m0skit0]

Oh ok, I understand now. You should have said it like Xian Nox points out.

Why would you invent a new language based on C? What are the benefits, aka, why would you do so? And anyway, you would have to translate it into machine code at the end, no matter what intermediate language(s) you're using.

[10$man]

Since we don't know what language it is, we only know that it's based of C, it would be logical to say a C based compiler.

I got what you mean, but I think it would be more accurate to call it an unknown C-based language compiler.

Alright, I understand know

This thread is becoming a bit funny I think he means a language with the same syntax/grammar with C. A brand new language.

I think he already explained that

Oh ok, I understand now. You should have said it like Xian Nox points out.

Why would you invent a new language based on C? What are the benefits, aka, why would you do so? And anyway, you would have to translate it into machine code at the end, no matter what intermediate language(s) you're using.

I wouldn't, I don't have that kind of time. If somebody did that, it would be so that when it was broken down to machine code it could be more optimized for the system itself (Gameboy or PSP).

[m0skit0]

I'm not talking about you. When you say "why would you do X" it actually means "why would someone do X". It's an impersonal "you".

If somebody did that, it would be so that when it was broken down to machine code it could be more optimized for the system itself (Gameboy or PSP).

If so, then it makes no sense since it's very hard to find a language which compilers are as optimized in generating assembly (and thus machine code) than C. Thus trying to write a language for a specific platform/architecture is a waste of time. For that you already have assembly

[10$man]

I'm not talking about you. When you say "why would you do X" it actually means "why would someone do X". It's an impersonal "you".

If somebody did that, it would be so that when it was broken down to machine code it could be more optimized for the system itself (Gameboy or PSP).

If so, then it makes no sense since it's very hard to find a language which compilers are as optimized in generating assembly (and thus machine code) than C. Thus trying to write a language for a specific platform/architecture is a waste of time. For that you already have assembly

I understand

Well, if you where making it for a public release so that anyone can code in C and have it run faster then the already out GBDK, then it could be not a waste of time. Also, I mean Gameboy specific optimization. But, I understand what your saying.

[m0skit0]

GB specific optimization could be included in a custom C compiler as well. Since all architectures are based on the same universal Von Neumann design, it's easier to optimize the C compiler rather than creating a whole new language for each architecture. That's a waste of time, money and effort for really very little benefit. It's not a good engineering idea.

[10$man]

GB specific optimization could be included in a custom C compiler as well. Since all architectures are based on the same universal Von Neumann design, it's easier to optimize the C compiler rather than creating a whole new language for each architecture. That's a waste of time, money and effort for really very little benefit. It's not a good engineering idea.

Alright, I wasn't planning on it. I was just asking. Thank you for your time!