22 Mar
2007
22 Mar
'07
6:55 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On 3/21/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>
wrote:
I used one of those compilers. What a piece of cr at p.
It compiled at run time only, like Alice Pascal, and was terribly slow. The
copy protected/write protected compiler disk had to be in the drive while the
program was running. I don't recall it being possible to save programs to
another disk.
It took five minutes to compile "hello world"
It could only be useful to learn something about C.
Assembler was more fun. Especially when playing with self-modifying code.
--
jd
Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.
-- Walt Kelly
On 22 Mar 2007 at 0:17, Tony Duell wrote:
There was a C compiler for the C-64. It was terrible and slow, but it
did do small programs. There were also BASIC compilers, but they
weren't terribly fashionable. Mostly folks programmed in interpreted
BASIC or assembler on those platforms (though there _was_ a push for a
while for a language named COMAL, but I avoided it).
... And for that matter the Commodore PET (I
know
the SuperPET had such a compiler), the C64, etc.
How many of the above would run *any* type of compile-to-machine-
language HLL compiler? Most of the BASICs were tokenized and
interpreted.