Re: A89: TI89 ROM vs HP49 ROM

To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A89: TI89 ROM vs HP49 ROM
From: "Scott Noveck" <noveck@pluto.njcc.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:55:27 -0400
Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org


>First, make no mistake about it, none of the Z80 calculators were written
in
>bloated C.  If you don't believe me, ask Pat Milheron.  They were all
>assembly.  The only reason that I see for making the 68k based calcs was
>that their was a readily available c compiler for the 68k series, and TI
>didn't care enough to really put effort into their machines.  Hell they
even
>had another company do the CAS for them!

Not quite accurate. Z80 C compilers are redily available now (I've got a
free one), but the z80 calculators are written in ASM because they're just
too weak to handle something written in C (in terms of speed and ROM size).
TI spent five years developing the TI92 (according to one of the HP49
developers), and to do something that complex in ASM alone would take
forever.  TI didn't "have another company so the CAS for them," they merely
saved time and resources by buying the writes to use the Derive core -
Derive is one of the most popular commercial CAS programs, and I don't think
TI could have written a better one in C.  The fact that there was something
better than what they could program readily available to them leaves them
utilizing a resource, not slacking off. . .