[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: beagle compiler
Paul Schlyter wrote:
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.
That was the only one I could think of--and I wasn't even sure that
it was *actually* self-hosted, or typically maintained in a cross-
development environment.
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.
Of course. ;-) (But not high-level, and seldom classified as
"compilers".)
-michael
New, faster SUDOKU v2.0 solver for Apple II's!
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."