«

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joona I Palaste wrote:
>
> goose <> scribbled the following...
> > Bat Guano <bat.guano@talk21dotcom> wrote...
> >> goose wrote:
> >> > but java is only available for platforms that are big enough to run
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> big like my mobile phone?
>
> > <NEWS FLASH> C probably targets that too </NEWS FLASH>

> > does your mobile have under a K of ram ?
>
> Do you know of implementations of C that run in under a K of RAM, then?

There almost certainly exist C implementations that *target* platforms
with under a K of RAM. Quite probably there exist free-standing C
implementations that *target* platforms with no RAM at all (just a small
fixed number of registers).

I'm almost certain there do *not* exist any C implementations that *run*
on platforms in under a K of RAM. But who needs a C compiler on their
mobile phone anyway?

-Arthur
(one of few reasons I'd consider buying one)

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <> wrote in newsine.LNX.4.55L-
:

> I'm almost certain there do *not* exist any C implementations that *run*
> on platforms in under a K of RAM. But who needs a C compiler on their
> mobile phone anyway?
>
> -Arthur
> (one of few reasons I'd consider buying one)

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
puts("lo wrld");
return 0;
};



Ian Woods

Ian Woods <> wrote in
news:Xns93E2B2314C534newspubwuggyorg@217.32.252.50 :

> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <> wrote in newsine.LNX.4.55L-
> :
>
>> I'm almost certain there do *not* exist any C implementations that
>> *run* on platforms in under a K of RAM. But who needs a C compiler
>> on their mobile phone anyway?
>>
>> -Arthur
>> (one of few reasons I'd consider buying one)
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(void) {
> puts("lo wrld");
> return 0;
> };

Hey! That's a multi-megabyte application under Windows.


--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d++ s+:- a+ C+ UL++++ P+ L+ E- W+ N++ o- K++ w+ O+ M !V PS+ PE Y+
PGP t+ !5 X- R- tv--- b++ DI++ D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y+++ ------END GEEK
CODE BLOCK------

Joona I Palaste <> wrote in message news:<bid3p2$rg$>...
> goose <> scribbled the following
> on comp.lang.c:
> > Bat Guano <bat.guano@talk21dotcom> wrote in message news:<>...
> >> goose wrote:
> >> > but java is only available for platforms that are big enough to run
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> big like my mobile phone?
>
> > whats your point ? that java rnus on your mobile phone ?
>
> > <NEWS FLASH> C probably targets that too </NEWS FLASH>
>
> > and it also targets many that java does not run on ?
>
> > so what exactly *is* your point ? java runs on a *fraction*
> > of platforms that C targets.
>
>
> > does your mobile have under a K of ram ?
>
> > thought not
>
> Do you know of implementations of C that run in under a K of RAM, then?

no, but if you find one, let me know

otoh, I know of more than just a few freestanding c implementations
that target (but do not run on) many machines with less than a K of
ram.

goose,

(Robert Wagner) wrote in message news:<>...
> Tom McGlynn <> wrote:
>
> >One site, http://www.techiwarehouse.com/Cobol/, had
> >some interesting statements about COBOL though. No source is
> >given so take them with as much salt as you like. The one
> >that caught my eye was:
> >
> > 15% of all new applications (5 billion lines) through 2005 will be in COBOL.
>
> The site also says:
>
> "Replacement costs for COBOL systems, estimated at $25 per line, are in the
> hundreds of billions of dollars."
>
> "There are 90,000 COBOL programmers in North America in 2002. Over the next four
> years there will be a 13% decrease in their number due to retirement and death."
>
> Lines per day published elsewhere are usually 12. (FWIW, shops I managed
> averaged 50 lines per day.) Taking 12 lines * $25 / 8 hours = $37.50 per hour.
> That's reasonable.
>
> Taking 15% of 4.6B lines / 3 years / 250 days per year / 82K programmers = 11.3
> lines per day. Check.
>
> I earlier estimated 40,000 mainframe COBOL programmers in the US. The 82,000
> figure given here looks better because it's corroborated by the other numbers.
> Further, 82,000 COBOL programmers / 600,000 total US programmers = 13.7%, which
> agrees with the 15% distribution by language.
>
> Canada's population is 9% of North America (US + Canada). I adjusted the number
> of programmers and lines by .91 to simplify comparison with US statistics.
>
> The Web site goes on to say, without corroboration:
>
> "The most highly paid programmers in the next ten years are going to be COBOL
> programmers."
>
> Why? The price of most human labor is determined in the same way as other
> commodities -- by supply and demand. It is not based on some imagined measure of
> worth or difficulty (excepting executives). Let's look at the demand side.
>
> Computerjobs.com, which provides handy statistics, categorizes as Legacy 500 /
> 12,000 = 4% of openings. Some of the 12,000 'technology' jobs are
> non-programmers, optimistically as many as half, so 8%. DICE.com shows 550=COBOL
> / 7,000=(developer or programmer) = 8%. Monster.com returns nearly identical
> numbers.
>
> Why is the demand for COBOL 8% rather than 15%? Because COBOL programmers stay
> in their jobs longer than average? Because companies using COBOL, generally
> large old-line ones, are creating jobs more slowly than average?


Although I agree that demand for COBOL application developement will
continue to grow, if what one Indian consulanting firm told me, a few
years back, is true,COBOL programmer rates probably will probably
drop in North America.

The Indian consulting firm claimed they were training over 20,000
cobol programmers a year in India. In the few Fortune 500 firms I
have worked at any new COBOL developement has been done by consulting
firms with Indian programmers. Maintenance and productions support is
being done by the US staff.

Please stop crossposting to comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso.

Thank you.

Please stop crossposting to comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso.

Thank you.