Re: 86 Basic to ASM
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: 86 Basic to ASM
Ok, enough is enough. Tyrrill, you don't know what you are talking about.
There is absolutely no reason why TI Basic cannot be compiled. Compiled
languages require a run time library, and guess what??? TI has one, it is
called the ROM.
I have compiled Basic statements into Asm, and then simply pointed to the
Rom routines to perform the complicated stuff. I will not release mine
because it means that I would have to maintain it, and I don't have the
time. I am, however, sure that one of the high schoolers would be more
than thrilled to spend his time doing this type of a project, rather than
wasting time writing silly games. This is a very useful project, with real
applications for engineers, and students who need more power than they can
get out of BASIC.
Why, you might ask. Write the program in BASIC. Convert it to ASM. Then
optimize it to do things that cannot be conveniently done in BASIC.
Unfortunately, my guess is that only games would then be written.
Just my opinion.
domroy
At 19:05 7/7/97 UT, you wrote:
>BASIC is not just one language. The term refers to any language that has its
>general look, syntax, and commands.
>
>Hal and other compilers do not compile TI-BASIC; they compile their own
>versions of BASIC. The reason TI-BASIC, and some other versions of BASIC that
>share this property, cannot be compiled (and run without an interpreter) is
>because code can be generated during runtime. If, at an Input command, the
>user entered at the prompt an expression such as 4+5*6, the interpreter would
>have to be present to evaluate that to 34. The user might not just use
>mathematical symbols but other BASIC functions. Code can be generated not
just
>through an Input command, but inside the program code itself. It is true that
>some commands could be pre-compiled, but an interpreter would always have to
>be present because code can be generated.
>
>The versions of BASIC that can be compiled and run without an interpreter
>cannot generate code during runtime. If you use their Input command, for
>example, you won't be allowed to enter expressions that contain BASIC
>functions, but in TI-BASIC, you can.
>________________
>
>Jeff Tyrrill
>http://tyrrill-ticalc.home.ml.org/
>http://ti-files.home.ml.org/
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lake
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 1997 3:35 AM
>To: Jeff Tyrrill
>Subject: Re: 86 Basic to ASM
>
> Jeff Tyrrill wrote in article ...
>>It is impossible to convert TI-86 BASIC code into assembly, just because
>of
>>the very nature of the BASIC language (it is an interpreted language).
>>However, there are at least two programs available (or under development)
>that
>>do this for the TI-85 using their own BASIC, and I wouldn't be surprised
>if
>>the authors add the ability to compile for the TI-86 because it would
>work
>>almost exactly the same as the TI-85.
>
>It's not impossible at all! BASIC is a language. It can be implemented as
>an interpreter or as a compiler. In fact, for the first ten years of its
>life (1965-1975) BASIC was ONLY available as a compiler. Yes, there are at
>least TWO TI-Basic compilers under development. I'm betting that HAL-86
>makes it out first. HAL-85 will be available in about two weeks and the
>beta I'm using seems bug-free already. It doesn't compile the entire
>TI-Basic language but that's just a limitation in HAL, not because of any
>inherent inablilty of the TI-Basic language to be assembled..
>
>Tom Lake
>
References: