On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 2014 4:45 PM, "geneb" <geneb
at deltasoft.com> wrote:
Weren't their BASIC interpreters written in
some cpu-agnostic code that
then got tossed into another tool that output the code for the target cpu?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, A. P. Garcia <a.phillip.garcia at
gmail.com>wrote:
I think that's right. They cross compiled
using a pdp11, I believe, using
p-code as an intermediary.
They used an intermediate code like that for Word, but not for BASIC. At
least some versions of Word were reported to be a mix of native code and
intermediate code. I think the native code was generated directly from
source rather than through an intermediate code step.
Microsoft BASIC interpreters were written in native assembly. In the early
days 8080 and 6502 BASIC interpreters were assembled on a DECsystem-10
using macro packages for MACRO-10.
I haven't heard of Microsoft ever using a PDP-11 for development of their
mainstream software. Perhaps they may have used it for Xenix development.
sorry, my memory is a bit fuzzy. in the forward to Writing Solid Code
by Steve Maguire, David Moore talks about developing Microsoft
Multiplan:
"The system we used to develop Multiplan was pretty sophisticated for
PC development in those days. We wrote the core product in C -- most
programs then were written in assembly or Pascal. We did our editing
and compilation on a PDP-11 running Unix. The C code was compiled into
p-code and downloaded to the target machines. We had to build p-code
interpreters for each microprocessor in use at that time."