[A83] Re: other languages?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: other languages?
> Ah, sorry if I was unclear. I was not thinking in terms of efficiency,
> per se. I am referring more to the limits of the abilities ti-basic
> gives the programmer. For example, the string processing in ti-basic is
> almost useless, lists are poor substitutes for arrays, etc. There are
> certain math-related and other tasks that I simply can't do in basic.
> These are things that I could program on the computer, but would rather
> have on the calculator because then I would have them when I need them.
> In any case, thanks for the tip, I will look for this c-compiler you
> mentioned.
>
> Ryan
Hmm! What would you then exactly expect of a good language?
TI-Basic is not so extremly limited than some people might think.
Ok, it is of course limited, if you look at assembly, that offers you
almost all ways to program anything.
But I'm pretty sure, that this C-compiler would not support saving
or reading data from the calc, as well as he supports neither good
display routines nor using the TI-Link support (or if it can these
things, then in a really, really complicated way).
In addition I hope you know what inefficieny means: a program
will be really large! You might have no idea, because BASIC-progs
are very small, because every command just takes up one byte.
If you code in assembly or in another language (that will be compiled
in binary code, so that there's no difference to assembled code in kind)
most commands can take up several bytes.
Ok, that's all! I don't want to influence your decisson ; ) , but I think
you
should be warned...
oh, and sorry for that it was the false name in the mail. (Outlook = Shit^3)
Patrick
References: