>>>> "Tim" == Tim McNerney <mc
at media.mit.edu> writes:
Tim> bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
> Any good leads as am still looking for a small
boot strapable
> langauge here. Tiny C will not work as my instruction set does
> NOT have register to register operations. I plan to have a wopping
> 48Kb system as that was BIG memory 1975 ish.>>
>
Tim> Your best bet is to write a byte-code interpreter in your native
Tim> instruction set. If your architecture Turing-equivalent it
Tim> doesn't matter what operations are missing. Tiny Basic, UCSD
Tim> Pascal, Logo, Java, Scheme and lots of other languages have been
Tim> implemented this way.
So is Forth, with a twist: much of the implementation is itself coded
in Forth (i.e., in bytecode) so the amount of stuff you have to write
in assembler is very small indeed. In the PDP-11 implementation I
have, the "core" assembly code is 500 lines; there's a bunch more
stuff coded in assembler that doesn't actually need to be (I changed
it to assembler as an optimization). That may be another few hundred
lines, max.
paul