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

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

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


I see no problem with making an intermediate language.  Sure it may not
be as fast as pure asm but there has to be a trade off between ease of
use and speed.  It's like programming a pc game in pure asm or c++.  The
pure asm game written properly would most likely be more efficient then
the c++ version but do people really want to spend hours upon hours
programming complex games in asm.  Do you have a concept of how few games
there would be if they had to be programmed in pure asm?  There have been
a few attempts already to create ti languages... HAL and Small-C are two
examples.  If you look at these two intermediate languages you will find
that they both have one major similarity.. They are both run-time based. 
Both have a standard library of routines that are automatically added to
the begining of every program.  This is just one example of things that
could be easily changed to make a better intermediate language.

Just my $.02

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:47:40 -0500 "David Phillips" <david@acz.org>
writes:
>
>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.
>
>>
>> I've noted that here there's an "anti-compiler" feeling.
>>  If BASIC is too slow, and asm is too dificult, why not
>>  a mid-term? Why not to join the confort of a high-level
>>  language as BASIC with the speed of a low-level language
>>  as asm? "Asm-lovers" don't have to leave asm, and we know
>>  the best of the best programs will always come from asm,
>>  but certainly many people out there could do good stuf
>>  with a language in between BASIC and asm.
>>  In my seeing, TI86's memory can handle it, specially if
>>  the compiler has shared librarys. Yes, it'll take more
>>  space than asm programs but, hey, there's always a price
>>  to pay. It's all trade offs.
>>
>>  NSJ
>>
>>
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Follow-Ups: References: