Re: A86: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?
Hell, what about a JavaVM86?
That'd be something!
--- Aaron Curtis <acurti1@umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you could make a new on-calc language,
> "anti-basic" or
> something... It could be similar to the way basic
> is done now, reading
> tokens and such (sort of like chip8), but it would
> be oriented towards
> doing cool things :). Another idea that'll never
> get done...
>
> David Phillips wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com