Re: A86: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A86: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?


Perhaps you could make a new on-calc language, "anti-basic" or
something...  It could be similar to the way basic is done now, reading
tokens and such (sort of like chip8), but it would be oriented towards
doing cool things :).  Another idea that'll never get done...

David Phillips wrote:
> 
> Since no one else has responded, I'll respond.  Programming is for fun.
> Only people who enjoy programming can really be called programmers.  If you
> like it, then you should program in whatever you want to.  Anyone who enjoys
> programming and can do it (yes, it's a gift, believe it or not, everyone
> can't be a John Carmack).  If you like to sit in class and write games in
> ti-basic, good for you.  That can be a lot of fun.  I started programming
> calcs in 10th grade by writing many, many games and other programs in basic
> on the 82 (before asm :)
> 
> Basic is built into the rom.  Basic is programmed on the calc.  Because it
> is hand typed on a cramped keypad, it tends not to get too bloated.  Basic
> is slow and limited.  But if it's fun for you to program in, then go ahead.
> Now, asm on the other hand, is the programmer's dream.  You have absolute
> and total control over the calc.  If it's possible, you can program it.  And
> many, many things are possible.  More than one could possibly have time to
> ever program.
> 
> Now, an intermediate langauge, would be like a bad cross between the two.
> It would take away the ease-of-use, because it'd have to be done on the
> computer.  And programs could possibly crash the calc, unlike basic
> (well...).  Programs would be bloated, without the programmer having to hand
> type all the bloated code.  The calc doesn't feasibly have enough memory or
> speed to make it possible.
> 
> If one desires to learn asm, and puts enough work into it, they can learn
> it.  If not, they should stick to basic.  There are many more platforms
> (like the PC) that can be easily programmed in "easier" languages, where the
> result is much more fruitful and where the overhead is not noticed (or with
> Windows, embraced).
> 
> That's my point of view, and I'd be interested in what everyone else has to
> say.
References: