Sure, target market will decide what is the best option.Originally Posted by medievalelks
Yes, of course, the developer will need to test with both, because code that compiles with one may not compile with the other, and even if both happily compiles it, doesn't mean that it runs perfectly from both.
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
> i am a noob when it comes to the detailed stuff about compiling code
But you're writing programs which write programs?
One of these statements doesn't make any sense. If you've got as far as you claim, figuring out how to compile should be the least of your problems.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
Now we return to exactly why I suggested some sort of interpreted language such as an homage to Java or even more likely something more similar to Python.
MinGW is too large to package with my program. how would I go about makeing "my own language"? I want people to be able to run the generated programs on systems without my program installed.
Well... I guess that throws my good intentioned idea out the window. I have made my own high level languages for embedded devices before. But that is so much simpler since the device will always be the device... memory locations, CPU, IO, and all. But a PC is a pain to do that with.
Refer to my earlier post (since I truly believe I was the only one who understood your question fully from the beginning). You are going to want to make code that is written via your specification for code syntax and convert it to its machine code equivalent.
I have one other idea, but you probably wouldn't like it as much. You could just have precreated PE or ELF or whatever OS you use file headers with a precompiled engine layout already to go. Then you'd simply be writing your own type of linker, instead of compiler.
In any case that was the worst description of what I have in mind ever. Not to mention the chances of you knowing what I am talking about are pretty slim.
I think I know what you mean. I think a high level language is the best option given my level of programming, thanks everyone for the help.
Yeah and its a starting point. Look at the linux distros of yesteryear and look at the progress that has come with experience (I'd use a similar analogy with windows but other than shininess and a larger base of bugs, there isn't much progress worth mentioning).
As your language gets finished you can expand on it and probably eventually build exactly what you want. But start simple and work your way up.
You could try to find a smaller c compiler. There are compilers out there designed to have small binaries.
For example tcc
Last edited by King Mir; 04-25-2008 at 08:07 PM.
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was,
He could have cooked his rice much sooner.
