22 Sep
2013
22 Sep
'13
8:46 p.m.
On 22/09/13 10:49 PM, dwight elvey wrote:
Although, not what your thinking of, there were
several
Forth engines made.
Most of the low level words were single instructions.
In fact many low level words were often combined
as single instructions.
It still needed the string interpreter for interactive
but compiled was mostly values that translated
direct to execution.
One could also mention the Inmos Transputer, which had a (shallow) stack
oriented instruction set.
The Transputer is architecturally interesting from many angles, as is
mentioned on this list from time to time.
--Toby
Dwight
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:35:14 -0600
From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Hardware parsing of BASIC?
On 9/22/2013 6:31 PM, Rick Bensene wrote:
The Wang 2200 executed BASIC directly, though it
was a microcoded engine
that did the execution.
If you consider a microcoded processor that accepts BASIC statements and
tokenizes them on input, and executes the tokenized code when the BASIC
program is run a "hardware" implementation of BASIC, then this probably
fits the criteria of the posting above.
But did not the classic computers, in the late 50's plan for the very
same idea, with true stack based languages using logic gates rather than
microcode. Getting side tracked with time sharing, is what gave us Basic
in my view. Ben.