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

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

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



  Well, I'm going to comment on a bunch of mails
  so, be ready. Oh, I'm sorry I didn't put the
  [OT] on the msg subject, I forgot it completly.

warhorse wrote:
> What would be neat? Visual ASM!! We'd have
> some cool programs then!

  What's your idea of a Visual Asm?


David Phillips wrote:
> Since no one else has responded, I'll respond.  
> Programming is for fun.

  That's right.

> Only people who enjoy programming can really be
> called programmers. If you like it, then you
> should program in whatever you want to.
> ...
> 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.

  And why do have to have only extremes? Ease-of-use
  doesn't have to exchange 'binarly' (0% or 100%)
  with speed.

> The calc doesn't feasibly have
> enough memory or speed to make it possible.

  I desagree with these one. Yet to be proven.

> If one desires to learn asm, and puts enough work
> into it, they can learn it.  If not, they should
> stick to basic.

  What? The hard way or nothing? Is it the way you
  think? It's like someone else said, sure there's
  out there many people with good ideas but 'no
  means' (which may be just no time to master asm).
  Besides programming, there is "IDEAS". Programing
  can be see just as a "means" to do stuf (like
  games).
  
  BASIC is drastically different from asm. This can
  be a good reason why BASIC programmers have so
  much difficulty making the transition. Maybe an
  intermediate language, along with the other
  advantages, could help a lot in making the
  transition.
  And remember you can always use asm in an
  compiled language (for the most critical stuff).


Aaron Curtis <acurti1@umbc.edu> wrote:
> 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 :)...

  Where can I find chip8?


TGaArdvark@aol.com wrote:

> Quite true.  But not an original idea.
> Anyone here remember HAL?

  I've tried HAL. Good try. It lacked optimization.


Chris Magill <v8r@juno.com> wrote:
> I see no problem with making an intermediate language.

  Cool ;)...

> 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...

  That's right... I've made one also. TISCO.

> 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.

  TISCO only includes the USED code in the final
  program, and has DLLs. I think TISCO's generated
  code is quite good (not because I've done it... 
  I've seen other TI compilers), and I still can see
  a lot of improvement to do (optimization). As far
  as I know, no one ever used TISCO. It is still far
  from good, overall...
  I started to think and I arrived the conclusion that
  I don't know what people would like to have as an
  intermediate language. Probably TISCO (C) isn't
  adequate for a calc. Maybe a more 'calc oriented'
  language would be better. I would like to know
  everybody's opinion on this.


warhorse <warhorse@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> ... How about better tutorials? I'd be happy with
> that. I also would like big lists. i.e. Lots of...

  I just wanted to note that having a compiled
  language doesn't exclude asm programming nor
  tutorials and such. There will always be asm
  programming, at least for the most critical
  sections of code or because it really gives
  a much smaller size in routine X or Y.


SkOink <carissaclark@home.com> wrote:
> So, I've got an Idea! Why not make a Chip8
> compiler/player for the 86? Chip8 is a simple enough
> language so that game wouldn't be bloated,
> but potential ASM programmers, or those who want to
> make cool games but don't have it in them to learn ASM.
> Chip8 is a simple enough langue so that the compiler
> could be on-calc, and due to it's limited number of
> commands (~50?), the programs made would be simple,
> but still fast, better, and smaller tan basic, 
> although more limited. It would be used to make small,
> grafical games along the line of Pong, Nibbles, ...

Jarrod <xero@sover.net> wrote
> ... but it is just that i think there are *so* many
> good ideas that people have out there, but assembly
> just puts everyone off with its lack of similarity
> to any other language.
> ...

  That's the spirit!


"Jimmy [iso-8859-1] Mrdell" <yarin@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> That would be incredible easy as Andreas Ess has made
> a Chip8 emulator for Usgard, 85. Porting it should be
> no problem at all.

  I don't know chip8 yet, but the question is: is it
  the THE language?


Cliff320@aol.com wrote:
> sounds good, but do you know how hard it is to write
> a compiler, let alone on for a calculator

  I know how hard it is to write one :).
  It doesn't have to compile on the calc, but it
  depends on the language. If you think it is a
  drawback, think it inherited the feature from
  asm :).


Chris Phelps aka Chicane <chicane@reninet.com> wrote:
> I'll do the emulator if someone else will make the
> compiler.

  I'll help write the compiler, whichever is the
  language.


ZeromusMog@aol.com wrote:
> Rather than making a new programming language, I'd
> just like to see someone make a Basic Assembly
> Library (BAL? AAK!) or something that adds extra
> commands to BASIC like inverted text, variable pic
> size, and the ...

  Ah!... You could have a fast putsprite, but a
  motion would always be slow, wouldn't? As far
  as it concerns processing power you would get
  the same as BASIC.


David Phillips <david@acz.org> wrote:
> The problem here is that if you only have 1 or 2
> programs written in this special language, then you
> will waste TONS of space. This is way there are
> no libraries with Usgard and CrASH. It is innefficient.

  I don't know if it will be TONS... it's yet to be
  proven. An essencial part is a DLL mechanism, so
  that code can be shared. This would be a *good*
  thing. Asm progs always rewrite graphic routines,
  data input, score board, var handling, link, etc.


David Thomas <david_hd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hell, what about a JavaVM86?
> That'd be something!

  And why not (a smaller version calc oriented)?
  But is it THE language? (The most apropriate and
  productive, and... for a calc?)

> It depends what you're doing... for games, I agree
> that ASM is the only way to go; but for some math
> progs I've written have really been much too intense
> for BASIC to handle in a reasonable amount of time,
> but were simply to difficult to code in ASM. It is in
> areas like this where a new language might be very
> welcome.

  Ah!! A new follower :)...

 ***

  So, what/how would be the calc's dream language?

  NSJ aka Viriato
Follow-Ups: References: