This is such a wonderful thing!

I also recommend checking out TextViewer--it's a great way to distribute documentation for ASM programs. I know docs take up space for users, but you only have to keep them around until you learn a new program. Delete them when you're finished. :) Besides, users can write their own text documents, too. It's incredibly simple. I think the editor included with this program would be a great way to edit text files (maybe program files, too, but I like the built-in editor for that).

I may have to learn enough 86 ASM to put my calculator in (less) danger now. :)

ticalc.org likes the word "wonderful", don't they? :-)

And the word "antidisestablishmentarianism." Just because it sounds really... wonderful ;)

--BlueCalx

How about pneumonoultramicroscopictransilicvolcano koniosis. (It is one word but I had to break it up due to character limits)

Nah, it was just that I thought the program was wonderful--and I wanted to be more subjective so I wrote a comment. I just happened to feel the same way about the program 2 minutes after I wrote the news article. ;)

Now all we need is a dos program to convert .asm files to strings, and vice-versa so we can work on ASM programs while away from our computers and convert it back so we don't have to re-type anything. Then I would definately use this program. I'd use it now, but I don't want to re-type a few hundred lines of code on my calc.

Otherwise, great work!

There already exists that program... prgm86 which is what you usually use for putting together asm files. Or Jimmy's bin2str if you want a string. All you'd have to do is set up a simple filter to catch the newlines and convert them into the calc's version of a newline...

So if there's even, say, a minor slip that crashes the calc (or an infinite loop, etc.) the entire source is gone? Doesn't seem very productive to me (unless you could upload the source back to a PC and read it from there. . .

I have to agree with you there. It doesn't make much sense to produce a nice piece of code that might have a mistake that looses all the information. However, what you said would fix that problem.
Matt H.

Nope. There's crash protection to escape simple bugs like infinite loops. You obviously couldn't recover from corrupted memory, etc., but it does make programming significantly safer.

I haven't used this comiler for just that reason... but how is the crash protection implemented? If it's a TSR interrupt then it won't be active if the program coded used grayscale or any other interrupts.

I believe it uses the _alt_interrupt_exec space in im 1, so as long as a grayscale interrupt finishes by jumping to the system interrupt routine, it should work fine. Clem could probably provide more details.

What is the purpose of that coin size battery in the calculators? Why is it not used to retain the memory when the other battery are taking out after a crash?

It is used. It generally works if there has not been a crash, and after all there generally aren't crashes if you're using your calculator for math. After a crash however some programs such as chmasc can help you recover your memory. It's not perfect. I'm making a better version but I'm being held up just now.

The watch battery only works if the calculator shuts down in the 2nd OFF mode, or if you're lucky. If you use 2nd Off, the calculator is prepared to use that battery. With any other shutdown, or a crash, the calculator is unprepared.

So just be careful.

P.S. This means that if you shut down from a shell, you need to get ALL THE WAY out of the shell and shut down with a 2nd Off from the TI-OS before you change the batteries.

Wouldn't a well-thought out shell have programmed in it a way to tell the calculator, "You're off, stupid!!", instead of having to back out of the shell?

I've never actually used a shell on my calc, so I don't know what I'm talking about.. well, maybe i do.. sorta..

wasn't this what hal-ic was supposed to do? hal-ic was supposed to come out a year ago, what happened to it?

Yeah, I know! I believe that the HAL-IC (Higher Assembly Language - In Calc for those of you who don't know) site declared the project discontinued, but I'm not sure... just a few days ago I gave up all hope of an on-calc asm editor, and deleted all my HAL files and internet links. Now this comes along! From following what went on in the HAL-IC I understand that this is quite an accomplishment! Great job!
And all of you asking for 83 ports- don't hold your breath. The original HAL-IC programmers said that they chose the 86 because it was the only calc available at the time that had enough RAM for both the compiler and any programs you wanted to write; the 83's 28k isn't enough. However, that *was* before the 83+ and archived memory...

Will there be any chance of an on-calc compiler for the 83+?

or will I have to get a 86 or 89?

Excellent idea. The TI Community has been lacking one of these. Now no one has to buy any more Link Cables!

By-and-by, if this is what I think it is, can we say "major upsets" on the high-score lists?

-Phil K.

Um, since this is an assembly program, you'll need a link cable to send it to your calculator.

ROFL. I just noticed that too, well, I beter get goin, hurricain Floyd is blowing the winds like a mo-fo, see ya guys.

Nyahahahahaha..... darned if you do and darned if you don't :)

Looks like everyone will have to spend $17 on a link cable while I spent $50 for mine five years ago.. :P

--BlueCalx

you can link to a calculator that has this compiler, write your assembly progs, then compile them all w/out the use of a comp... even if some calculator locally has to use a link not everyone who wants to write assembly needs to have a comp. and since im bringing other calcs into this id like to point out that you could backup all progs-including the compiler into another calculator to protect against crashes... even though the first part is depentdent on comps the rest is independent love it thanx for the effort. cant wait to see the upgrades...