Re: Bit manipulation

[Sandro Binetti <sandrobinetti@my-deja.com>]

In article <dale-E44FBB.07363509112000@news-server>,
  Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> The answer to the first argument is that you use C to call Unix
routines
> because either

[ ... snip ...]

OK! You're quite right! This first case is meaningless.

>
> The second argument, that you -have- to use low level manipulation
> in C, is not supported by any examples.

There are, IMHO, two different languages:
1) the language used by hardware engineers
2) the (O.O.) programming languages used by the software developpers
that should use the hardware devices sub 1)

The language sub 1) is, quite often, bit-manipulation oriented (mask
the 4 MSB to obtain XXX, shift twice leftmost in the register YYY to
set the device status in ZZZ mode, and so on ...)

The language sub 2), say ADA, has to make an abstraction of these
hardware specifications, or, simply, use them?

Is it correct, in a teamwork made of a lot of engineers and programmers
that exchange documentation each other, arbitrarily "upset" a bit-
oriented specification, given as a starting point for a subsequent
software developement, in order to "match" ADA high-level point of view?

Of course, a correctly analized problem has to be faced in a "high-
level" way, this is the case of certain kind of systems developped
inside the O.O. paradigm constraints. But, how to face a low-level
explained problem? Using a low-level language?
--
Ciao, Sandro


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.