old threaded languages, was Re: Symbolics

From: John Foust <jfoust_at_threedee.com>
Date: Wed Mar 1 08:42:37 2000

At 12:43 AM 3/1/00 -0500, John Wilson wrote:
>Funny how this stuff seems to be dying out these
>days, but then again, if C is really bad at something, it's considered to
>be that something's fault, no big surprise I guess. It's a really great
>tool for cases where you're willing to lose a little speed to save a lot of
>space.

I remember at least one interpreted C for DOS on a PC in the mid 80s.
We used it to more quickly compile/debug a project that otherwise
took 10-20 minutes to recompile and relink with Microsoft C. It had
its own IDE, so you wouldn't even need to drop down to a DOS prompt.
I can't remember the name of it, though.

Sadly, as we all know, the size of executables or memory footprints
don't seem to matter much to today's developers. Does it matter that
it takes 30 megs or 70 megs to store Windows on a hard drive?

A lot of "old" techniques are present deep inside new technologies.
Java, for instance.

As for the Byte book, I bought mine in 1983 for $22.95, it's
"Threaded Interpreted Languages" by R.G. Loeliger, ISBN 0-07-038360-X,
Byte Books, 1981.

I was all fired up to give a URL with my Amazon affiliate ID
embedded in it, but it's not found there. I don't see R.G.
on the net, either.

I used this book to attempt to write a TIL for the Commodore 64.
The book gives examples in Z-80 code. My attempt ended when
the 1541 disk drive scrogged my only relevant copy of the
source code. I learned a lesson about the importance of backups.

In hindsight, I certainly haven't forgotten the value and appeal
of TILs. I also think life is too short to force people to write
their own editors, or to drop them in block-structured editors.
TILs belong under the hood of big apps, or on the bare metal
of embedded computers.

- John
Received on Wed Mar 01 2000 - 08:42:37 GMT