The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
devblogs.microsoft.com
The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#2I’m confused about deleting comments and renaming variables unless TASC itself written in Applesoft. Which seems crazy.
> As the author added features, he kept hitting the Apple ][‘s 48KB RAM limit
There was a language card that could replace the upper 16KB of ROM with RAM, but of course, you’d still need to have the interpreter somewhere.
I’ve never heard of TASC before, but Beagle Bros also had an AppleSoft compiler (released in 1986):
https://archive.org/details/Beagle_Bros-Beagle_Compiler
Beagle Bros had an bevy of amazing software in general:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_Bros
I feel bad now that I pirated so much of it as a teenager.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#3I’m confused about deleting comments and renaming variables unless TASC itself written in Applesoft. Which seems crazy. > As the author added features, he kept hitting the Apple ][‘s 48KB RAM limit There was a language card that could replace the upper 16KB of ROM with RAM, but of course, you’d still need to have the interpreter somewhere. I’ve never heard of TASC before, but Beagle Bros also had an AppleSoft compile…
> All three passes were written largely in Applesoft
Wouldn't this explain it?
But it seems odd that they wouldn't at least save a LUT relating the shortened and expanded variable name.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#4I’m confused about deleting comments and renaming variables unless TASC itself written in Applesoft. Which seems crazy. > As the author added features, he kept hitting the Apple ][‘s 48KB RAM limit There was a language card that could replace the upper 16KB of ROM with RAM, but of course, you’d still need to have the interpreter somewhere. I’ve never heard of TASC before, but Beagle Bros also had an AppleSoft compile…
> All three passes were written largely in Applesoft Wouldn't this explain it? But it seems odd that they wouldn't at least save a LUT relating the shortened and expanded variable name.
Doh. I read right over that.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#5I’m confused about deleting comments and renaming variables unless TASC itself written in Applesoft. Which seems crazy. > As the author added features, he kept hitting the Apple ][‘s 48KB RAM limit There was a language card that could replace the upper 16KB of ROM with RAM, but of course, you’d still need to have the interpreter somewhere. I’ve never heard of TASC before, but Beagle Bros also had an AppleSoft compile…
> All three passes were written largely in Applesoft Wouldn't this explain it? But it seems odd that they wouldn't at least save a LUT relating the shortened and expanded variable name.
Applesoft II fit in 10 kilobytes of rom and had to be able to run in as little as 4 kilobytes of ram. The one thing that Microsoft was an expert at (in that era) was sacrificing features to fit.
There was no special version for machines with more ram or with a floppy disk.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#6Was quite an interesting article, enjoyed it. But I must be daft, because I don't understand how the title relates to the article. From the title, I had assumed that the source code to TASC had somehow been recently recovered.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#7I tried this compiler out back in the day and found the benefits, at least with the AppleSoft programs I had access to (mostly MECC titles) were fairly negligible. What rarely popped up, however, were show-stopper errors — programs would compile & run. That was nice.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#8Was quite an interesting article, enjoyed it. But I must be daft, because I don't understand how the title relates to the article. From the title, I had assumed that the source code to TASC had somehow been recently recovered.
I suppose the title means that they have the source code physically, just no one can understand it, because the author had to remove all comments and shorten all variable names to one character so that the code would fit into the RAM.
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#9I’m confused about deleting comments and renaming variables unless TASC itself written in Applesoft. Which seems crazy. > As the author added features, he kept hitting the Apple ][‘s 48KB RAM limit There was a language card that could replace the upper 16KB of ROM with RAM, but of course, you’d still need to have the interpreter somewhere. I’ve never heard of TASC before, but Beagle Bros also had an AppleSoft compile…
Back in ‘84 I convinced my parents to visit the beagle bros headquarters in Los Angeles!
It was awesome. They were super nice and I got to visit Sophie: the Beagle Bros beagle!
Re: The Applesoft Compiler (TASC): We have the source code, in a sense
#10I’m confused about deleting comments and renaming variables unless TASC itself written in Applesoft. Which seems crazy. > As the author added features, he kept hitting the Apple ][‘s 48KB RAM limit There was a language card that could replace the upper 16KB of ROM with RAM, but of course, you’d still need to have the interpreter somewhere. I’ve never heard of TASC before, but Beagle Bros also had an AppleSoft compile…
I’m pretty amazed it was self hosting. I’m sure it was faster to iterate that way but it seems like it would be so much more efficient to use assembly. Kilobytes were so precious.
Maybe it didn’t matter as much since it was a compiler and not a runtime environment.