young@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Todd Young) (03/12/89)
Does anyone have a -good- basic compiler they might be interested in selling? A nominal amount of speed, and compatability with either Atari, or basic XL would certainly be a plus. Thanks
clutx.clarkson.edu (Matthew S. Walsh) (03/13/89)
From article <1168@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, by young@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Todd Young): > Does anyone have a -good- basic compiler they might be interested in selling? > A nominal amount of speed, and compatability with either Atari, or basic XL > would certainly be a plus. > > There have been two compilers for Atari BASIC which I know of. One was the ABC compiler, and the other name escapes my memory at this time. The problem with these compilers is that the speed of your program will only increase marginally, and the file size will increase substantially for all the "Runtime" packages needed for screen drawing, math, etc. I think if you need speed, but like the interactive style of basic, I'd take a look at ACTION!, which was supposedly the fastest 8-bit language ever developed. It was put out by OSS on a supercartridge, just like BASIC XL. However, I remember a disk version of ACTION that someone cracked. (of course I never had it, wink wink). But I guess if you don't care about size or speed and you just need something to run from DOS, look for the ABC compiler. Matt "Mr. Atari" Walsh Clarkson University Potsdam NY
DAVISM@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael T. Davis) (03/14/89)
In article <2652@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, walshm@sun.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu (Matthew S. Walsh) writes: >From article <1168@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, by young@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM >(Todd Young): >> Does anyone have a -good- basic compiler they might be interested in >>selling? A nominal amount of speed, and compatability with either Atari, or >>basic XL would certainly be a plus. >> >There have been two compilers for Atari BASIC which I know of. One was the >ABC compiler, and the other name escapes my memory at this time. > I believe the other compiler you're thinking of is the MMG BASIC Compiler. According to the advertising I remember, it was supposedly "better than any other compiler available for the Atari", but you could probably take that with a grain of salt. There was also a product issued that was a collection of MAC/65 macros with names corresponding to Atari BASIC commands. (It's name, of course, escapes me. :-) You would run the Atari BASIC (in LISTed form, presumably) through MAC/65 with these macros, and you'd get a stand-alone ML program. I would imagine this ML program would be quite effecient, since it wouldn't require any run-time code. Mike __________________________________________________________________________ | THE InterNet address> davism@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | These_Thoughts := My_Own | |************************************************************************| | "Daddy, Daddy!! Why's Mommy running across the field?" | | "Shut up Son, and reload." | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (03/14/89)
Todd Young asked about obtaining a BASIC compiler.. Have you tried the TurboBASIC language and compiler..? It was written by the same programmer who did GFA BASIC for the Atari ST, and best of all, it's available for free.. commercial info services have it, and many local Atari BBSs and user groups should list it also.. It's upwardly compatible with Atari BASIC, and requires at least an XL.. It doesn't create standalone .OBJ files though, as commercial compilers like the DataSoft BASIC Compiler did.. BobR
ajy2208@ultb.UUCP (A.J. Yarusso) (03/15/89)
Mike, I'm very interested in the collection of Mac/65 macros that resemble Atari BASIC commands. I would love more information about them, that is, if you have any. I have had experience with the MMG Compiler you spoke of, and had little trouble compiling many BASIC programs. The object files were rather large, but ran much more quickly than the BASIC version. I wish I had it now (a friend of mine showed it to me a LONG time ago). oh well. Albert Yarusso, Bitnet:ajy2208@ritvax Usenet:ajy2208@ultb.rit.edu
DAVISM@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael T. Davis) (03/15/89)
In article <441@ultb.UUCP>, ajy2208@ultb.UUCP (A.J. Yarusso) writes: >Mike, > I ass-u-me that's me (:-). > I'm very interested in the collection of Mac/65 macros that resemble >Atari BASIC commands. I would love more information about them, that >is, if you have any. I have had experience with the MMG Compiler you >spoke of, and had little trouble compiling many BASIC programs. The >object files were rather large, but ran much more quickly than the BASIC >version. I wish I had it now (a friend of mine showed it to me a LONG >time ago). oh well. I'll see if I can dig up some more info...I'm pretty sure a local friend of mine might even have the MAC/65 macros. I'll talk to him and get back to you. Mike __________________________________________________________________________ | THE InterNet address> davism@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | These_Thoughts := My_Own | |************************************************************************| | "Daddy, Daddy!! Why's Mommy running across the field?" | | "Shut up Son, and reload." | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cbbrowne@lion.waterloo.edu (Christopher Browne) (03/15/89)
In article <2652@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> walshm@sun.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu.UUCP writes: >From article <1168@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, by young@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Todd Young): >> Does anyone have a -good- basic compiler they might be interested in selling? >> A nominal amount of speed, and compatability with either Atari, or basic XL >> would certainly be a plus. >> >> >There have been two compilers for Atari BASIC which I know of. One was the >ABC compiler, and the other name escapes my memory at this time. I vaguely remember the other one... I think it was sold by Datasoft? There's also a public domain basic compiler that based on Turbo Basic (the PD souped up BASIC by Frank Ostrowski). I have a copy of this at home. Unfortunately, home is 300 miles away, I won't be returning there 'til April, and I won't have net access from then through the summer. And I never got around to testing it out. There were apparently some problems in running it... I'm not sure how reliable it is, but check with one of the PD software sources; they may have it, and if you can get it for $5, you can't go too wrong... Christopher Browne University of Waterloo Computer Science Club Treasurer cbbrowne@lion
frankh@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Frank Hamlin) (03/16/89)
/ hpnmdla:comp.sys.atari.8bit / young@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Todd Young) / 7:16 am Mar 12, 1989 / >Does anyone have a -good- basic compiler they might be interested in selling? >A nominal amount of speed, and compatability with either Atari, or basic XL >would certainly be a plus. I have used three different basic compilers, including the ABC compiler and Turbo. The turbo compiler is by far the best. It runs the standard atari basic, isn't limited to only integer numbers, and has extra commands not in Atari basic. A really nice program. It is also public domain (Free). The documentation is also a text file that can be sent along with the program. One catch, the compiler was written in Germany and the commands are in German. I revised my copy so the commands are in English, but the responses are still in German. (J/N vs Y/N) Tough, but most technical people can handle it. Let me know if you would like a copy.
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (03/16/89)
The other BASIC compiler Matt Walsh remembered was the DataSoft BASIC Compiler... it had its quirks (like requiring ALL Data Statements to be at the END of the program), but the resulting code WAS quite fast, especially if you chose the INTEGER compile option (if you needed floating point math, you could compile under that option, but the speed suffered).. I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly code), the ACTION language was the winner.. For ease of programming, and speed of development though, the BASIC compilers couldn't be beat... BobR
RCH@cup.portal.com (Ric C Helton) (03/18/89)
I downloaded the MMG basic compiler from a BBS in Atlanta last night, and played with it a little before going to bed. If you want it, it is in a DISKCOMMed file on my BBS, Freestyle, at 404/546-8256 (3/12, 24hr). The program boots as an AUTORUN.SYS, and was DISKCOMMed with 2.0, so I will have to play with it to see if it will run under Sparta. The program's copyright is 1984 so I am not really hopeful! :-) I believe the comapny was Special Software Systems, but don't hold me to that; it was reallllllly late! From what I understand, though, MMG was released into the public domain. Program operation is simple: you give it the name of a saved BASIC files, the name of the file to compile into, and whether it needs INTEGER or FLOATING POINT math. Then it whizzes, whirs, makes several "passes" and gives you a file roughly three times the size of the BASIC file. The .exe file seems to perform fine, though I will have to try it with some math- intensive stuff to see any appreciable speed increase. I will play with it some more and let you know. In the meantime, give me a call, and try it out yourself. (File should be called MMGCOMP.DSK or something like that. Type GO ATARI at the section prompt, then either DIRECTORY or BROWSE.) -Ric Helton RCH@cup.portal.com -Freestyle BBS 404/546-8256
wilmott@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ray Wilmott) (03/19/89)
About the MMG Basic Compiler...I haven't used it in several years (I
use TurboBasic if anything anymore), but from what I recall, I had
experienced some problems with it. *MOST* of the time compiled Basic
programs worked just fine. It seems to me that I had a lot of trouble
with programs that did extensive graphics though (lots of PLOT's and
DRAWTO's)...the compiled version would either do nothing, or would
draw the *wrong* stuff! Just wondering since the discussion came up,
but is it just me, or was this a problem everyone had with it? In
either case, for programs that did little graphics, or were all
GRAPHICS 0, the MMG compiler worked like a charm.
-Ray
PS - Just picked up Dark Chambers and Crossbow today...thanx Atari
for finally releasing 'em! Keep it up....I want more, MORE! :-)
wilmott@topaz.rutgers.edunjd@ihlpm.ATT.COM (DiMasi) (03/21/89)
In article <15887@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > > ...... > I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly > code), the ACTION language was the winner.. > ...... > > BobR Why did you write this in the past tense? Is there now a compiler that produces faster object code than ACTION! ? (Not that I would want it, I don't even have much time to write programs anymore, although I'm working on it...) Nick DiMasi njd@ihlpm.ATT.COM ...att!ihlpm!njd DELPHI: TURBONICK Uni'q Digital Technologies (Fox Valley Software subsidiary; ^ working as a contractor at AT&T Bell Labs in Naperville, IL) ( | this is an accent mark, supposed to replace the dot over the 'i')
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (03/28/89)
Nick DiMasi asks: >> I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly >> code), the ACTION language was the winner.. >> ...... >> >> BobR >Why did you write this in the past tense? Is there now a compiler that >produces faster object code than ACTION! ? (Not that I would want it, >I don't even have much time to write programs anymore, although I'm working >on it...) Sorry.. just being fatalistic (or realistic, perhaps) about the idea of doing ANY coding on a 6502 machine anymore.. No, I doubt that ACTION will ever be surpassed by anything other than pure assembly code.. I remember when OSS visited the local user group (MACE), and put on a terrific demo of the *new* ACTION! language cartridge... blew the socks off everyone in the place...! And, as far as I know, there was *nothing* that even came close, for any other 6502 based computer... BobR
hamill@sky.COM (John Hamill) (04/07/89)
In article <3201@ihlpm.ATT.COM> njd@ihlpm.ATT.COM (DiMasi) writes: >In article <15887@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >> I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly >> code), the ACTION language was the winner.. >Why did you write this in the past tense? Is there now a compiler that >produces faster object code than ACTION! ? (Not that I would want it, >I don't even have much time to write programs anymore, although I'm working >on it...) Action might be the fastest compiler, but it is clearly a waste for anyone who wants to produce a useable program. If you want *real* compiler, use Mac65.
brett@sylvester-tr.umd.edu (Brett S Bourbin) (04/08/89)
In article <510@sky.COM> hamill@sky.COM (John Hamill) writes: >In article <3201@ihlpm.ATT.COM> njd@ihlpm.ATT.COM (DiMasi) writes: >>In article <15887@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >>> I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly >>> code), the ACTION language was the winner.. >>Why did you write this in the past tense? Is there now a compiler that >>produces faster object code than ACTION! ? (Not that I would want it, >>I don't even have much time to write programs anymore, although I'm working >>on it...) > > Action might be the fastest compiler, but it is clearly a waste for >anyone who wants to produce a useable program. Well, I don't know about that. When I was doing development work on the 8-bit Ataris, I switched from writing my pseudo-code from Basic-XL to ACTION! since the speed was _a lot_ closer to the assembly speed it would finally be in. I even wrote many of my conversion and editor programs in ACTION!, and they were quite useable. Plus the enviorment, going from source to the editor to running it was great. > If you want *real* compiler, use Mac65. I always like the AMAC (Atari Macro Assembler) since I think it is a great shame to treat assembly like BASIC source with line numbers and a BASIC-like editor. If only AMAC was as fast as Mac65 and less buggy. 8^) Just some of my thoughts, but then you knew that. 8^) --Brett S Bourbin __ __ _ __ _ Instructional Computing Programs -- Univ of Maryland | || | / || || \ | || || || || | INTERNET: brett@SYLVESTER-TR.UMD.EDU | || || || || | bbourbin@UMD5.UMD.EDU \_||_/ |__||__||__| BIX: brettb College Park BITNET: bbourbin@UMDD
charles@c3pe.UUCP (Charles Green) (04/09/89)
In article <510@sky.COM> hamill@sky.COM (John Hamill) writes: >In article <3201@ihlpm.ATT.COM> njd@ihlpm.ATT.COM (DiMasi) writes: >>In article <15887@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >>> I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly >>> code), the ACTION language was the winner.. >>Why did you write this in the past tense? Is there now a compiler that >>produces faster object code than ACTION! ? (Not that I would want it, >>I don't even have much time to write programs anymore, although I'm working >>on it...) > Action might be the fastest compiler, but it is clearly a waste for >anyone who wants to produce a useable program. Eh? How so? The only true 80-column terminal emulator I have, which I'm running right now, is written in ACTION!. Granted, a cartridge is less convenient for some folks, and my DOS won't run the compiled executable (I have to recompile each time to use it)... By the way, has anyone gotten either Deep Blue C or InterLisp/65, available from Antic Software? -- "There's something strange in your CPU ... Who ya gonna call? WORMBUSTERS!" Charles Green, C3 Inc charles%c3pe@decuac.dec.com ex::!echo Gotcha: (vi modeline test - is your system secure?)
rbharding@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ron Harding) (04/10/89)
In article <6691@c3pe.UUCP> charles@c3pe.UUCP (Charles Green) writes: >By the way, has anyone gotten either Deep Blue C or InterLisp/65, available >from Antic Software? I've used Deep Blue C considerably, since I have nothing better. I bought my copy back when APX still existed. I just recently bought Deep Blue Secrets from Antic. - It is a rewrite of Ron Cain's Small C. This means: - no structures or unions - no arrays of dimension greater than 1 - no floating point numbers - functions can't return anything but 16-bit integer - no sizeof operator (useless without structures anyway) - no typecasting (not enough data types to need it anyway) - nothing fancy like register or static variables - other stuff missing too. - It produces fairly slow code. This is understandable, if you know how its runtime engine works. - It compiles at an ungodly slow speed. To be fair, here are some advantages (as compared to C/65, at least)+ - It doesn't need line numbers. OSS loves line-numbers. They're needed for Mac/65, and C/65. What a waste. - It takes lower-case input. C/65 doesn't. What a pitiful waste. - I haven't run into any major-ugly bugs. - Source code is(possibly was) available, in Deep Blue Secrets, from Antic. - It comes with fairly complete libraries, including routines for graphics, sound, and player-missile graphics. In general, I've been satisfied with it, given the limitations of the 6502. I've used it to write a number of utilities for SpartaDOS. I tried to do a text editor, but it was just too slow for that. Given the choice between Deep Blue and C/65, I'd choose DBC. I can't compare to Action! since I've never used it. I get the impression that I should. Ron Harding.