Re: [Tinyos-devel] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Fwd: [Tinyos-help] TinyOs avr-gcc-4

[David Gay]

On 10/16/07, Eric Weddington <address@hidden> wrote:
> can meet in the middle, where we all win. TinyOS is a great idea for sensor
> networks. I'd like to be able join forces to promote it further. I don't see
> how I can promote use of NesC to a wider audience where there are still
> arguments between assembly vs. C, and C++ is just starting to make inroads.

If you think that a successful sensor network OS must be in regular C,
then you should be pushing Mantis, SOS or Contiki. Rewriting TinyOS in
C, to the extent that that means anything at all, would be wasting
time better spent on improving your favourite existing OS.

Or, in other words, TinyOS depends on nesC for rather more than whole
program optimisation (components, interfaces, atomic statements,
external types, generics would probably be a good summary). "Porting"
it to C is not a realistic concept, so you're asking for someone to
write a new C-based sensor network OS, possibly with concepts inspired
by TinyOS. At that point, you'd better have good arguments about
what's wrong with Mantis, SOS, Contiki or all the other light-weight C
OSes before embarking on the exercise.

David Gay