interpreted languages

Question: Should most applications for the iPAQ be written in an
interpreted language?

I think yes. Here's my rationale: 1) the ARM and MIPS are
unconventional architectures. 2) if you're going to write in a
compiled language, you need a toolchain. That means: 2a) a skiff or
shark, but so far the skiffs haven't been of stellar usability. 2b)
cross-compilation, but that doesn't work with anything that tries to
make a Makefile, or system-dependent Makefiles. 2c) native
development, but that means you need more mass storage; either over a
network or a microdrive. 3) An interpreter can interpret the same
language regardless of architecture. 4) An interpreter can be
assisted with some assembly-language in critical sections, e.g. the
ARM memory pre-fetch instruction.

Perl is a reasonable choice, if only because of Tom Christiansen's
Perl Power Tools project: http://www.perl.com/pub/language/ppt/index.html

I think Python is a better language for larger projects, though.

-- 
-russ nelson <sig@russnelson.com>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.