A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?

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

A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?


I completely agree with you, sorry i may have come off sounding a little
elitist with regards to your not liking the idea of a scripting language
translator, but it is just that i think there are *so* many good ideas that
people have out there, but assembly just puts everyone off with its lack of
similarity to any other language.

I do know quite a bit of assembly, i have been just working on enhancing the
z80 end of it and i need more practice with the graphics, but it took me a
few tries to get to learn and be interested. I started once, and thought i
was a moron because i couldn't understand anything, but then i started to
learn x86 asm and for some reason (maybe more resources) i found it easier.
Now i am back into z80 asm (tho i admit not nearly the level of you, david,
;)  )  and i like it a lot more.

Maybe if people took more time to right more down-to-earth tutorials (like
trent lillehaugen (sp?) did, his were good, but brief).  That would have
helped me a ton, i know it takes time to write tutorials, but so many of
them seem so advanced to the average programmer, that it may throw them off.

just my thoughts.

-  Jarrod Overson
----- Original Message -----
From: David Phillips <david@acz.org>
To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 12:47 AM
Subject: A86: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?


>
> Since no one else has responded, I'll respond.  Programming is for fun.
> Only people who enjoy programming can really be called programmers.  If
you
> like it, then you should program in whatever you want to.  Anyone who
enjoys
> programming and can do it (yes, it's a gift, believe it or not, everyone
> can't be a John Carmack).  If you like to sit in class and write games in
> ti-basic, good for you.  That can be a lot of fun.  I started programming
> calcs in 10th grade by writing many, many games and other programs in
basic
> on the 82 (before asm :)
>
> Basic is built into the rom.  Basic is programmed on the calc.  Because it
> is hand typed on a cramped keypad, it tends not to get too bloated.  Basic
> is slow and limited.  But if it's fun for you to program in, then go
ahead.
> Now, asm on the other hand, is the programmer's dream.  You have absolute
> and total control over the calc.  If it's possible, you can program it.
And
> many, many things are possible.  More than one could possibly have time to
> ever program.
>
> Now, an intermediate langauge, would be like a bad cross between the two.
> It would take away the ease-of-use, because it'd have to be done on the
> computer.  And programs could possibly crash the calc, unlike basic
> (well...).  Programs would be bloated, without the programmer having to
hand
> type all the bloated code.  The calc doesn't feasibly have enough memory
or
> speed to make it possible.
>
> If one desires to learn asm, and puts enough work into it, they can learn
> it.  If not, they should stick to basic.  There are many more platforms
> (like the PC) that can be easily programmed in "easier" languages, where
the
> result is much more fruitful and where the overhead is not noticed (or
with
> Windows, embraced).
>
> That's my point of view, and I'd be interested in what everyone else has
to
> say.
Follow-Ups: References: