Re: 1802 Languages
- --- In email@example.com, "J.C. Wren" <jcwren@j...> wrote:
>I think a post was lost by yahoo.
> Say what? C expects nothing. C, the language, has no I/O. I/O is< disk
> implemented in libraries. Even so, beyond a console and perhaps
> storage, there are no standard C libraries that I'm aware of thatHardware is the CPU, not IO. I understand libs. I've used smallC
>have any expectation of hardware.
on z80 since the early 80s.
What I was talking about is pointers and address arithmetic.
What would 1802 C do with
chr = *px + 8;
I suspect the resulting code would be ugly if not large for both
C for 1802 would be useful. However C was born on a far larger
machine that did indexed indirect addressing natively, 16bit
stacks and an efficient call and return via stack. When put
on smaller machines (even Z80) C tends to have some aspect that
is inefficient. Smaller the machine the worse that tends to be.
The 1802 is an oddball, it's pointer register rich, but how they
are used is limited. when you take out the many needed for various
things R(0-6) like DMA, stack, PC and SCRT there aren't many left.
then there is the code to load, save and otherwise manipulate them.
> In fact, second only to Forth, C is usually one of the firstany rate).
> languages brought up on a new architecture (since the mid-80's, at
Sorry, Forth was years away when 8008, 8080, 8085, 8086/8, z80,
ti9900, 1801, 1802, SC/mp. SC/MPII, 6800, 6502 and a long list
I've forgotten were launched. All of them had BASIC of some form
first. The first C for those was even longer. For modern post
PC era (late 1981) that tends to be true as everyone now has a
cross compiler on PC for xzy cpu.
> Allison Parent wrote:
> > The problem with C even in the small form is that it expects things
> > from the hardware that often are not there. The result is often
> > poor (slow or big code) performance. I'm sure it can be done
> > for the 1802 but, why?? That and while I know C I really don't
> > like it that much.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, rileym65 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Sounds like a fun project. There are no current high-level
> languages that provide everything you need (although i am nearing
> completion an a pascal compiler that would have everything you need)
Did you ever get the pascal compiler working to the point where you
would share with another pascal (and 1802) enthusiast? Email me
direct, offlist, and best wishes for the New Year,