Pocket Lisp Machine
in [Lisp]
|
From: George Neuner on 27 Sep 2006 18:41 On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:35:16 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: >nallen05(a)gmail.com writes: > >> but there are also much more mature c->6800 and c++->6800 compilers. >> Would it be easier to use figure out how to interact with the OS with >> thinlisp or ecl and compile the generated c to 6800 with a tried and >> true c->6800 compiler? > >C++ on 6800 that must be funny. With only 64KB adressable... >http://www.cpu-world.com/Arch/6800.html Aztec had a good quality rommable code K&R C compiler for the 6502. IIRC, it was based on a prior 6800 version. George -- for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Pascal Bourguignon on 27 Sep 2006 18:56 George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:35:16 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon > <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: > >>nallen05(a)gmail.com writes: >> >>> but there are also much more mature c->6800 and c++->6800 compilers. >>> Would it be easier to use figure out how to interact with the OS with >>> thinlisp or ecl and compile the generated c to 6800 with a tried and >>> true c->6800 compiler? >> >>C++ on 6800 that must be funny. With only 64KB adressable... >>http://www.cpu-world.com/Arch/6800.html > > Aztec had a good quality rommable code K&R C compiler for the 6502. > IIRC, it was based on a prior 6800 version. Indeed, C is still routinely used on any microcontroler with slightly more than 100 byte of RAM... But AFAIK, not C++. I'm not saying either that it's totally impossible to write an implementation of C++ running on a 8-bit processor with 64KB of adressable space. But this sounds like a ludicruous effort. Note that the gcc C++ compiler on 32-bit ix86, stripped, takes 3.6 MB. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
From: George Neuner on 28 Sep 2006 00:55 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:56:07 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: >George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:35:16 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon >> <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: >> >>>nallen05(a)gmail.com writes: >>> >>>> but there are also much more mature c->6800 and c++->6800 compilers. >>>> Would it be easier to use figure out how to interact with the OS with >>>> thinlisp or ecl and compile the generated c to 6800 with a tried and >>>> true c->6800 compiler? >>> >>>C++ on 6800 that must be funny. With only 64KB adressable... >>>http://www.cpu-world.com/Arch/6800.html >> >> Aztec had a good quality rommable code K&R C compiler for the 6502. >> IIRC, it was based on a prior 6800 version. > >Indeed, C is still routinely used on any microcontroler with slightly >more than 100 byte of RAM... But AFAIK, not C++. > >I'm not saying either that it's totally impossible to write an >implementation of C++ running on a 8-bit processor with 64KB of >adressable space. But this sounds like a ludicruous effort. >Note that the gcc C++ compiler on 32-bit ix86, stripped, takes 3.6 MB. Oops. I saw the multiple "c->6800" references and totally missed that _you_ were talking about C++. Actually though, I think a reasonable, albeit non-compliant, compiler could be done in 64K if you left out template support and made judicious use of overlays. I don't know whether it's worth having C++ on an 8-bit chip ... I have certainly used it (cross-compiling and mostly as "better C" rather than idiomatic C++) for embedded programming on a number of 16 bit chips. It would certainly be a pain to use the compiler itself in 64K ... I still have vivid memories of writing my first C programs with the Aztec compiler on my Apple ][e with dual 140KB floppy drives. I had an extended 64KB memory card which gave me an 80 column screen and a ~60KB ram disk. The native 6502 compiler was ~80KB and had to be disk based, but Aztec also included a 34KB self-compiled bytecode compiler which, along with the linker, could fit into the ram disk. OTOH, I have eerily similar memories of writing my first PC programs using Microsoft C on a 640KB machine with dual 360KB floppy drives. Except in the PC case, the compiler took 2 (compiler) disk swaps per source file and another disk swap to link and I couldn't load any of it into a ram disk. On the whole, the smaller Apple was easier to work with. George -- for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Petter Gustad on 28 Sep 2006 06:02 George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes: > Aztec had a good quality rommable code K&R C compiler for the 6502. > IIRC, it was based on a prior 6800 version. The 1979 August issue of Byte Magzine had an article on a Lisp implementation for the 6800. Petter -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Pascal Bourguignon on 28 Sep 2006 04:42
Petter Gustad <newsmailcomp6(a)gustad.com> writes: > George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes: > >> Aztec had a good quality rommable code K&R C compiler for the 6502. >> IIRC, it was based on a prior 6800 version. > > The 1979 August issue of Byte Magzine had an article on a Lisp > implementation for the 6800. Key word being "a". But indeed, if I had a lisp on my 6809 instead of Pascal, I would probably have had more fun :-) -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" |