Re: beagle compiler

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <kP6dnauaTcrZhJTYnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article <huugg29uo6u0g0is3u9gjneed84vkolauc@4ax.com>,
>>  "Steve ][" <sc-ii@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>I don't have any direct help, but there was another compiler for
>>>Applesoft that came out a couple of years before the Beagle one,
>>>although I think the Beagle one was "better". Can anyone name that
>>>other compiler? I think I first took Telengard and compiled it and it
>>>was about 5x faster.
>> 
>> 
>> That would be the Microsoft Applesoft Basic compiler. It sucked serious 
>> ass. I could almost literally "hand compile" my code faster, and come up 
>> with cleaner, less bloated ML besides. (Which should probably come as no 
>> surprise -  Even in the early days, Microsoft code sucked.)
> 
> This was the compiler known as The Applesoft Compiler, TASC.
> 
> It was slow, but it was written in Applesoft and then compiled
> using itself.  How many self-hosted compilers were there for
> the Apple II?
> 
> -michael

You had Apple Pascal.

And if you also include Apple CP/M, there were definitely a number of
self-hosted compilers there as well - e.g. Whitesmith C, which was big
and slow (and expensive) compared to the more popular BDS C.

Among the assemblers, most were probably self-building.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/