Re: QUESTIONS about the TI-86!?!
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: QUESTIONS about the TI-86!?!
I seriously doubt that there is an assembler in the calculator (by
"assembler", I'm talking about what Tasm does). Can somebody with a TI-86 tell
us what the command does?
________________
Jeff Tyrrill's TI Calculator Site: Contains programming tips, undocumented
discoveries and tips for power users, and comparisons of the different
calculator models.
http://tyrrill-ticalc.home.ml.org/
TI-Files member: The premiere TI site on the web, with reviews of games and
more.
http://ti-files.home.ml.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: Open discussion of TI Graphing Calculators On Behalf Of Eli Allen
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 1997 2:35 PM
To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS about the TI-86!?!
I'm not saying it is compiling. But if you are trying to make a command
that would assemble a program into machine code and had to keep the name
short what would you call it? I seems like TI called it AsmComp because to
those that don't known the difference between assembling and compiling they
might think that both terms mean the same thing. Plus AsmComp makes more
sense then AsmAsm.
Therefore using the wrong term "compile" is a better term to use to avoid
confusion.
--
Eli Allen eallen@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us
Team Gates OSR2 beta test site
ICQ UIN # 669742
Andrew Wendt <powerpig@M-NET.ARBORNET.ORG> wrote in article
<Pine.BSI.3.95.970621144137.6010A-100000@m-net.arbornet.org>...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Richard Bowman wrote:
> > You must certainly do "compile" assembler code. It is just another
language
> > just like C++ or BASIC, which is then converted into machine code.
> >
> > BowmanSoft Software
> > http://www.bowmansoft.com/
> > Web Hosting and Design Services
>
> You could say that.
>
> Notice that you see people selling Microsoft C compilers, and MASM
assemblers.
> You don't see any `Assembly compilers' or `C assemblers'.
>
> Also I would suggest that they are fundamentally different operations. In
> assembling, there is a well-defined mapping between the assembler
commands and
> the machine language. And since you can convert between the two freely,
you
> could even say that you are programming in the chip's native language,
but
> expressing yourself in a form easier to understand than bits and numbers.
Sort
> of like the way we express numbers in base 10, and the *same* number
inside
> the computer is expressed in base 2.
>
> Regardless of whether you think it's compiling or not, nobody calls it
that.
> =8-)
>
Follow-Ups: