RE: LZ: New TI-BASIC Compiler


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

RE: LZ: New TI-BASIC Compiler



First, ZBASIC has its OWN version of BASIC, it is not the same BASIC that is 
used in the calculators. Compilers for such programs as Visual Basic or QBasic 
are not really compilers, they just convert the human-readable code into a 
simpler format. Visual Basic applications require a DLL in the Windows/System/ 
directory, which is actually a real-time interpreter. The reason is this, and 
the TI-92's BASIC language is a very good example:

In an interpreted language, code can be generated "on-the-fly". This code can 
be stored as a string variable. On the TI-92, within a program, you can say:

InputStr A
(pretend the user entered the string "Disp 5", so the variable A is a string)
expr(A)    ; This would execute the command stored as a string in A, so the 
number 5 would be displayed on the Program I/O screen

Here, code has been generated during execution, and must be executed in 
real-time.
________________

Jeff Tyrrill's TI Calculator Site: Contains programming tips, undocumented 
discoveries and tips for power users, and comparisons of the different 
calculator models.
http://tyrrill-ticalc.home.ml.org/

TI-Files member: The premiere TI site on the web, with reviews of games and 
more.
http://ti-files.home.ml.org/


-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-list-zshell@lists.ticalc.org  On Behalf Of WonderWhim@aol.com
Sent:	Friday, June 20, 1997 5:39 AM
To:	list-zshell@lists.ticalc.org
Subject:	Re: LZ: New TI-BASIC Compiler

In a message dated 97-06-19 15:43:06 EDT, you write:

> 
>  TI-BASIC, on the TI-85, is an interpreted language. You CAN NOT compile an

>  interpreted language. You just can't. The only way around it is to make 

Then how do you explain the existance of compilers for interpreted languages
like basic and awk?  Languages are not bound to being interpreted or
compiled.

> calls 
>  to the TI-85's BASIC interpreter whenever code generated on-the-fly needs
to 
> 
>  be executed. IMO, this is not worth the trouble. That is the reason that a

>  compiler would not work with *.85p files.


Actually, you could take the basic source and convert it to assembly code.
In fact, there is already a program that does this, ZBasic, which is
available somewhere on ticalc.org



Follow-Ups: