Re: A82: Re:

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A82: Re:

That's because TI-basic is an interpreted language.  It's more of a scripting
language, like Quake-C or the kind built into com programs.  I doubt that a
compiled TI-basic would speed up programs by more than a factor of 2 or 3.
 But I'd like to see someone try.  I would be interesting.

I don't a C program would have too much overhead.  If someone wrote a great
optimizer, you could have a C program beat a lot of asm programmers.  If you
don't believer that, look at the Watcom C/C++ compilers for the PC.  They
will optimize better than all but the most experience 80x86 asm programmers.
 Doom was compiled with it, and used almost no assembly language.  Don't look
down so much on high level languages.  There's no such thing as "the fastest
code".


David Phillips
esdavid@aol.com

<< 
 Bascially, you are getting into the area of HAL, or a header file attached
to the
 code. C/Pascal, etc, require far too much overhead, as you said. It would
not be
 hard to make a header file converting every Disp and Output in TI-Basic to
asm.
 Actually, now that I think of it, you'd simply need an equivalent to every
 ti-basic command. It would be fairly easy, but unoptimized. The hard part is
with
 floating point and the other math stuff that is integrated so well into
TI-basic.
 
 ESDavid@aol.com wrote:
 
 > Well, not exactly.  First of all, cout is a C++ command.  It is doing much
 > more than printing "Hello" or whatever to the screen.  It is putting that
 > data into a stream, which is sent to standard out, or the screen (more or
 > less).  Writing a C++ compiler for the calc would not be the greatest
idea,
 > since C++ is designed to make large applications easier to write and reuse
 > code, not write small games.
 >
 > If you do write a standard C compiler, you would most likely use printf.
 You
 > would take
 >
 > printf("Hello, World");
 >
 > and turn it into
 >
 >     LD HL, (PROGRAM_ADDR)
 >     LD DE, STRING1
 >     ADD HL, DE
 >     CALL PRINTF
 >
 > STRING1:
 >     .DB "Hello, World!", 0
 >
 > This is a basic idea of what the compiler would do.  You would have to
 > rewrite the printf function to call the rom function to write to the
screen.
 >  I hope this helps.
 >
 > David Phillips
 > esdavid@aol.com
 >
 > <<
 >  so I make it to where the libs turn   cout << "Hello"; to db. "Hello",0
 >
 >  On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:16:26 +0100 "Dines Justesen"
 >  <c958362@student.dtu.dk> writes:
 >  > C compilers have been made and are working for the TI85, so i can not
 >  >imagine why it should be so hard to make on for the TI82. As far as i
 >  >can
 >  >see all you have to do is to rewrite the libs.
 >  >
 >  >Dines
 >  >
 >  >-----Original Message-----
 >  >From: Bennie R Copeland <prince.endymion@juno.com>
 >  >To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org>
 >  >Date: 26. oktober 1997 00:38
 >  >Subject: A82: Re:
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >>oh ok =)
 >  >>
 >  >>On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:41:01 -0700 Matt Maurano <maurano@best.com>
 >  >>writes:
 >  >>>Next to impossible, and if possible, next to useless. prog82.exe
 >  >>>simply adds
 >  >>>the necessary ti82 header to make any z80 object code file into an
 >  >82
 >  >>>program. If you had a C complier that required no overhead on the
 >  >>>calc, and
 >  >>>could make z80 code, it would probably work. However, You are
 >  >probably
 >  >>>better
 >  >>>using asm, as C could be hard to adapt to the TI.
 >  >>>
 >  >>>Bennie R Copeland wrote:
 >  >>>
 >  >>>> how plausible is it to write a program in C or C++ compile into an
 >  >>>object
 >  >>>> file and then use prog82.exe to make it into a ti 82 file? >>