John Backus passes away...
ethan.dicks at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 21:04:56 CDT 2007
On 3/21/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 at 0:17, Tony Duell wrote:
> > ... And for that matter the Commodore PET (I know
> > the SuperPET had such a compiler), the C64, etc.
> How many of the above would run *any* type of compile-to-machine-
> language HLL compiler? Most of the BASICs were tokenized and
There was a C compiler for the C-64. It was terrible and slow, but it
did do small programs. There were also BASIC compilers, but they
weren't terribly fashionable. Mostly folks programmed in interpreted
BASIC or assembler on those platforms (though there _was_ a push for a
while for a language named COMAL, but I avoided it).
I know there was a FORTRAN compiler for the SuperPET, but having not
used it, I have to ask what the available target CPUs were - 6809,
6502, or both?
With its banked 64Kbyte memory card, the SuperPET weighed in at 96K -
plenty of RAM for serious work, but the processors were still slow,
and IEEE disks with software GPIB handshake were no speed demons
PETs were popular in some lab settings, so I would think that if
FORTRAN would have been available for it, there would have been a
niche market. Perhaps that's why the SuperPET had FORTRAN as an
More information about the cctalk