tiny-c/PC - CP/M

This is a discussion on tiny-c/PC - CP/M ; On Feb 10, 12:27 pm, BruceMcF wrote: > On Feb 10, 3:32 am, Lee wrote:> Maybe you're looking at the wrong archive? > > Probably just a caching problem ... I had was the archive before the > 80808 source ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: tiny-c/PC

  1. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 10, 12:27 pm, BruceMcF wrote:
    > On Feb 10, 3:32 am, Lee wrote:> Maybe you're looking at the wrong archive?
    >
    > Probably just a caching problem ... I had was the archive before the
    > 80808 source was added. Got it now.
    >
    > > Here's a real dumb question. Why are you writing an 8080 version?
    > > I can see implementing a 6502 enhancement, but don't we already have
    > > an 8080 version?

    >
    > Since I am making some changes to the the 6502 version to make it
    > easier to implement with the C64 Kernal, and to cope with the 40-
    > column display, and to cope with PETSCII silliness, the 8080 version
    > would be implementing the WADUZITDO/80 model exactly, and could cope
    > with PETSCII text.
    >
    > So the C128 in CP/M mode would have a choice of WADUZITX for cross CP/
    > M portability and WDZD80 for cross CBM portability.
    >
    > I expect to be 100% of the user base, so I want to treat the user base
    > right.
    >
    > Oh, and plus if the whole point of the exercise is to program in
    > machine code, just running existing code is no fun.
    >
    > > Also, are you using the MYZ80 emulator in maxz80.zip or another?
    > > ZDE.COM is the best editor in my book and may be used under MYZ80
    > > emulator.

    >
    > I just downloaded maxz80.zip yesterday, it was another MyZ80 that I
    > had been using.
    >
    > > Are you using the PC VDE or the CP/M VDE?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > I had already been a PC VDE user from the early 90's, when I first
    > moved from a C64 for wordprocessing to an Amstrad supertwist LCD, dual
    > 3.5" disk PC-DOS machine, so I made sure to hunt down CP/M VDE when I
    > was using MyZ80 to check the 16-bit system portability of some Forth
    > code I was writing.


    I'll be REAL brief. All your answers are GREAT! Thanx!

  2. Re: tiny-c/PC

    Hello, Lee!

    I have some news: I finally received the Tiny-C book... but there was
    not the 5-3/4" floppy mentioned on the cover! However, inside, there
    was a spare sheet listing the files on the floppy and, from it, it is
    clear that 99% of them are printed in the book. (Apparently, 2 or 3
    example programs are missing.)

    However, I am presently working full-time on another interpreter, so
    will not work on it in the near future (especially if I only have the
    C version). If you ever find another copy of the Handbook with the
    details of the 8080 coding, I remain very interested.

    > (...) I'd like to talk about "Toby Speak" for a bit. One of
    > the reasons for doing this is to revisit the "Literary Programming"
    > topic introduced by Emmanuel Roche. "Toby Speak" was a bear to debug
    > so I decided to try and document it down to the finest detail by
    > inserting numbered comment tags in the source code and externally
    > documenting each code section in a browsable file.


    Alas, alas...

    1) It was "Literate Programming". This kind of automatic documentation
    of a program was named by Don Knuth. There is lots of systems doing
    it everywhere, and even a FAQ.

    2) In your HTML file, I read: "Please refer to the source code"!

    This is PRECISELY what "Literate Programming" is all about: There must
    be only ONE single source file, from which the documentation and the
    program are automatically created. By using TWO separate files, you
    show that you have not understood.

    Me, in my preceding messages, I was including the source code of my
    BASIC programs inside the WS4 file (as any Google search will show).

    This will be all for today.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Mr Emmanuel Roche


  3. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 11, 9:28 am, roche...@laposte.net wrote:
    > Hello, Lee!
    >
    > I have some news: I finally received the Tiny-C book... but there was
    > not the 5-3/4" floppy mentioned on the cover! However, inside, there
    > was a spare sheet listing the files on the floppy and, from it, it is
    > clear that 99% of them are printed in the book. (Apparently, 2 or 3
    > example programs are missing.)
    >


    Wow - that took a long time to arrive! I am not surprised that the
    floppy did not come with the book. It did not come with mine either.
    That's why I had to type the source code in (from the listings in the
    book). If you are looking for the source code in C etc. it is in the
    archive

    http://primepuzzle.com/tc/tiny-c-pc.zip

    > However, I am presently working full-time on another interpreter, so
    > will not work on it in the near future (especially if I only have the
    > C version). If you ever find another copy of the Handbook with the
    > details of the 8080 coding, I remain very interested.
    >
    > > (...) I'd like to talk about "Toby Speak" for a bit. One of
    > > the reasons for doing this is to revisit the "Literary Programming"
    > > topic introduced by Emmanuel Roche. "Toby Speak" was a bear to debug
    > > so I decided to try and document it down to the finest detail by
    > > inserting numbered comment tags in the source code and externally
    > > documenting each code section in a browsable file.

    >
    > Alas, alas...
    >
    > 1) It was "Literate Programming". This kind of automatic documentation
    > of a program was named by Don Knuth. There is lots of systems doing
    > it everywhere, and even a FAQ.


    Yeah, sorry about that. I noticed the error soon after making it. It
    is spelled correctly in the source code

    /* 2/2/2008 - added "literate programming" "comment tags"
    /* look for /** 1 /** 2 etc.
    /* and external doc http://primepuzzle.com/tc/tobee.tc.html

    >
    > 2) In your HTML file, I read: "Please refer to the source code"!
    >
    > This is PRECISELY what "Literate Programming" is all about: There must
    > be only ONE single source file, from which the documentation and the
    > program are automatically created. By using TWO separate files, you
    > show that you have not understood.


    I think you're being a little hard on me. I'm doing the best I can. I
    did not include the documentation in the source code itself because
    that would have made the source file HUGE and the interpreter is
    limited in the size source files can have. I chose to cross link the
    source program and the documentation. The source file simply has tiny
    little tags in it to point you to the associated explanation in the
    corresponding doc file.

    >
    > Me, in my preceding messages, I was including the source code of my
    > BASIC programs inside the WS4 file (as any Google search will show).
    >
    > This will be all for today.
    >
    > Yours Sincerely,
    > Mr Emmanuel Roche



  4. Re: tiny-c/PC


    "Lee" wrote in message
    news:fd4ca5b2-5c92-4fda-8aca-f768734bff31@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    > On Feb 11, 9:28 am, roche...@laposte.net wrote:
    >> Hello, Lee!
    >>
    >> I have some news: I finally received the Tiny-C book... but there was
    >> not the 5-3/4" floppy mentioned on the cover! However, inside, there
    >> was a spare sheet listing the files on the floppy and, from it, it is
    >> clear that 99% of them are printed in the book. (Apparently, 2 or 3
    >> example programs are missing.)
    >>

    >
    > Wow - that took a long time to arrive! I am not surprised that the
    > floppy did not come with the book. It did not come with mine either.
    > That's why I had to type the source code in (from the listings in the
    > book). If you are looking for the source code in C etc. it is in the
    > archive
    >
    > http://primepuzzle.com/tc/tiny-c-pc.zip


    So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    Seems like a waste of time to me!

    Tom Lake


  5. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 11, 11:42 am, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    > "Lee" wrote in message
    >
    > news:fd4ca5b2-5c92-4fda-8aca-f768734bff31@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 11, 9:28 am, roche...@laposte.net wrote:
    > >> Hello, Lee!

    >
    > >> I have some news: I finally received the Tiny-C book... but there was
    > >> not the 5-3/4" floppy mentioned on the cover! However, inside, there
    > >> was a spare sheet listing the files on the floppy and, from it, it is
    > >> clear that 99% of them are printed in the book. (Apparently, 2 or 3
    > >> example programs are missing.)

    >
    > > Wow - that took a long time to arrive! I am not surprised that the
    > > floppy did not come with the book. It did not come with mine either.
    > > That's why I had to type the source code in (from the listings in the
    > > book). If you are looking for the source code in C etc. it is in the
    > > archive

    >
    > >http://primepuzzle.com/tc/tiny-c-pc.zip

    >
    > So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    > Seems like a waste of time to me!
    >
    > Tom Lake


    Maybe, but now we have a tiny language that's got a lot of its big
    brother's capabilities, is MUCH easier to program in and all we need
    to build new ap's is a plain Jane editor.

    Tiny gems from mighty blokes grow.

  6. Re: tiny-c/PC

    "Tom Lake" wrote:

    > So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    > Seems like a waste of time to me!



    Compiling the compiler is a seperate issue. In the OLD old days,
    assemblers and compilers were not native to microprocessor systems at
    all. It was a matter of limited resources. While one traditional test
    of a compiler was the ability to compile itself, it's not a necessary
    test. The point of a "tiny" C was and is to work within very limited
    resources. The fact that a CP/M system "today" has a variety of robust
    compilers, does not detract from the fun and interest by some in
    smaller & older tools. CP/M itself is such an interest, these days.

    I'll be interested in the 6502 result, for a microKIM I bought some
    months ago. Of necessity, most of the tools for that will be "off-
    line", as it's a smaller version of the original KIM. (Web search for
    the details.)

    Herb Johnson

    Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
    http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/ web site
    http://www.retrotechnology.net/herbs_stuff/ domain mirror
    my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
    if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
    "Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
    S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"

  7. Re: tiny-c/PC


    "Herb Johnson" wrote in message
    news:ba00f36c-2200-4fc2-88b4-103abef81eec@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    > "Tom Lake" wrote:
    >
    >> So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    >> Seems like a waste of time to me!


    The fact that a CP/M system "today" has a variety of robust
    > compilers, does not detract from the fun and interest by some in
    > smaller & older tools. CP/M itself is such an interest, these days.


    It does detract from it for me. 8^(

    I might extend the TinyC compiler to be able to compile itself, though.
    then I could use it to ratchet up to a full K&R version, eventually.
    My original question was rhetorical. I, too have fun just bit banging
    with no practical purpose in mind. The exercise of porting software
    and debugging is fun for me. Ask me a hardware question and I'll look
    at you with a blank stare, though.

    Tom Lake


  8. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 11, 11:42 am, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    > So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    > Seems like a waste of time to me!


    Is there a Small-C version of the Tiny-C compiler? Small-C can compile
    itself, so that would give Tiny-C an open-source, CP/M toolchain.


  9. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 12, 7:06 pm, BruceMcF wrote:
    > On Feb 11, 11:42 am, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    >
    > > So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    > > Seems like a waste of time to me!

    >
    > Is there a Small-C version of the Tiny-C compiler? Small-C can compile
    > itself, so that would give Tiny-C an open-source, CP/M toolchain.


    Oops, freely available source CP/M toolchain. Small-C is, or at least
    was, considered shareware.

  10. Re: tiny-c/PC


    "BruceMcF" wrote in message
    news:0e69ba18-7b34-479e-aa64-21fe2215e95c@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
    > On Feb 12, 7:06 pm, BruceMcF wrote:
    >> On Feb 11, 11:42 am, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    >>
    >> > So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    >> > Seems like a waste of time to me!

    >>
    >> Is there a Small-C version of the Tiny-C compiler? Small-C can
    >> compile
    >> itself, so that would give Tiny-C an open-source, CP/M toolchain.

    >
    > Oops, freely available source CP/M toolchain. Small-C is, or at least
    > was, considered shareware.


    The current license for Small-C is quite liberal. Registration is no
    longer required, and James E. Hendrix Jr. has published the following
    at http://www.oxaero.com/Jim.asp:

    Notice of Public Domain Status
    The source code for the Small-C Compiler and runtime libraries
    (CP/M & DOS), Small-Mac Assembler (CP/M), Small-Assembler (DOS),
    Small-Tools programs and Small-Windows library to which I hold
    copyrights are hereby available for royalty free use in private
    or commerical endeavors. The only obligation being that the users
    retain the original copyright notices and credit all prior authors
    (Ron Cain, James Hendrix, etc.) in derivative versions.

    James E. Hendrix Jr.



  11. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 12, 7:30 pm, "Fred J. Scipione"
    wrote:
    > The current license for Small-C is quite liberal. Registration is no
    > longer required, and James E. Hendrix Jr. has published the following
    > at http://www.oxaero.com/Jim.asp:


    > Notice of Public Domain Status
    > The source code for the Small-C Compiler and runtime libraries
    > (CP/M & DOS), Small-Mac Assembler (CP/M), Small-Assembler (DOS),
    > Small-Tools programs and Small-Windows library to which I hold
    > copyrights are hereby available for royalty free use in private
    > or commerical endeavors. The only obligation being that the users
    > retain the original copyright notices and credit all prior authors
    > (Ron Cain, James Hendrix, etc.) in derivative versions.


    > James E. Hendrix Jr.


    That is of course not public domain status ... or else there would be
    no obligation on any users ... but its basically equivalent to BSD
    license ... use the source as you want as long as you acknowledge
    authorship.

    OK, I untake back what I took back ... a Tiny-C tool-chain standing on
    Small-C would be an open-source tool-chain that can compile itself on
    CP/M.

  12. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 12, 7:30 pm, "Fred J. Scipione"
    wrote:
    > Notice of Public Domain Status
    > The source code for the Small-C Compiler and runtime libraries
    > (CP/M & DOS), Small-Mac Assembler (CP/M), Small-Assembler (DOS),
    > Small-Tools programs and Small-Windows library to which I hold
    > copyrights are hereby available for royalty free use in private
    > or commerical endeavors. The only obligation being that the users
    > retain the original copyright notices and credit all prior authors
    > (Ron Cain, James Hendrix, etc.) in derivative versions.


    > James E. Hendrix Jr.


    Well, then, that is in effect the BSD license ... use as you want, but
    acknowledge the author ... so I untake back what I took back ...

    .... and of course, it was rude to mention it without a link to
    the .lbr's ...

    http://z80cpu.eu/mirrors/oak.oakland.edu/cpm/smallc21/




  13. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Feb 12, 1:49 pm, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    > "Herb Johnson" wrote in message
    >
    > news:ba00f36c-2200-4fc2-88b4-103abef81eec@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > > "Tom Lake" wrote:

    >
    > >> So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    > >> Seems like a waste of time to me!

    >
    > The fact that a CP/M system "today" has a variety of robust
    >
    > > compilers, does not detract from the fun and interest by some in
    > > smaller & older tools. CP/M itself is such an interest, these days.

    >
    > It does detract from it for me. 8^(
    >
    > I might extend the TinyC compiler to be able to compile itself, though.
    > then I could use it to ratchet up to a full K&R version, eventually.
    > My original question was rhetorical. I, too have fun just bit banging
    > with no practical purpose in mind. The exercise of porting software
    > and debugging is fun for me. Ask me a hardware question and I'll look
    > at you with a blank stare, though.
    >
    > Tom Lake


    I'm not sure where to jump in on this very complex thread but since
    you, Tom, can be "blamed" for the current "sub thread," I'll do it
    here. This stuff is all incredibly interesting to me (as it obviously
    is to the everyone else here).

    First off, tiny-c is NOT a compiler and I think asking an interpreter
    to self-generate is asking WAY too much.

    Second, tiny-c DOES have a bootstrap-like nature, using what it used
    to call a "Program Preparation System" in the 8080 days and which it
    now calls an "Initial Program Load" file to prime the pump. pps.tc and
    tinyc.ipl are written in tiny-c itself, so in a sense, the desire we
    all seem to have that the program be written in itself is partially
    true.

    Third, although I was very pleased a fellow named Ed Davis jumped in
    and added the for statement, the autoincrement, autodecrement and not
    unaries, I have no interest in making tiny-c K&R complete. I like it
    tiny. It's easier to program in that way. I actually like struggling a
    bit to get a limited resource language to do fancy stuff.

    I've mentioned "Toby Speak" in this thread somewhere. It takes a text
    file and "translates" it into a bogus language that claims to be how
    my friend's cat Toby might have said it. This has been A LOT of fun to
    write. It's quite a complicated program which is why I have spent
    countless hours documenting it in http://primepuzzle.com/tc/tobee.tc.html.
    If you look at this doc side by side with the source code, you get a
    feeling for how capable this language is (and how tricky it can be to
    get something to work).

    Since tiny-c/PC is, at present, only partially documented (thru a few
    pages I've posted and the sample programs) it may be too much to
    suggest a few people take a whack at writing something in it. I'm
    constantly referring to the book. My write, run, debug cycle is
    typically VERY long. But, limited though it may be in all the ways it
    is, I kind of wish this gang would spend a little time trying to USE
    it, rather than wishing it were better.

    Lee

  14. Re: tiny-c/PC

    On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:10:15 -0800 (PST), Lee
    wrote:

    >On Feb 12, 1:49 pm, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    >> "Herb Johnson" wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:ba00f36c-2200-4fc2-88b4-103abef81eec@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >> > "Tom Lake" wrote:

    >>
    >> >> So you need a full C compiler to compile a Tiny-C compiler?
    >> >> Seems like a waste of time to me!

    >>
    >> The fact that a CP/M system "today" has a variety of robust
    >>
    >> > compilers, does not detract from the fun and interest by some in
    >> > smaller & older tools. CP/M itself is such an interest, these days.

    >>
    >> It does detract from it for me. 8^(
    >>
    >> I might extend the TinyC compiler to be able to compile itself, though.
    >> then I could use it to ratchet up to a full K&R version, eventually.
    >> My original question was rhetorical. I, too have fun just bit banging
    >> with no practical purpose in mind. The exercise of porting software
    >> and debugging is fun for me. Ask me a hardware question and I'll look
    >> at you with a blank stare, though.
    >>
    >> Tom Lake

    >
    >I'm not sure where to jump in on this very complex thread but since
    >you, Tom, can be "blamed" for the current "sub thread," I'll do it
    >here. This stuff is all incredibly interesting to me (as it obviously
    >is to the everyone else here).
    >
    >First off, tiny-c is NOT a compiler and I think asking an interpreter
    >to self-generate is asking WAY too much.


    Correct, though people have used tiny-C to create a smaller C compiler
    that would compile itself. Tiny-C was only the bootstrap inthe
    process.


    >Second, tiny-c DOES have a bootstrap-like nature, using what it used
    >to call a "Program Preparation System" in the 8080 days and which it
    >now calls an "Initial Program Load" file to prime the pump. pps.tc and
    >tinyc.ipl are written in tiny-c itself, so in a sense, the desire we
    >all seem to have that the program be written in itself is partially
    >true.


    The PPS was a was to use the interpreter with a user interface that
    had a rudimentary editor and a library (existing routines) that you
    can use. Without the pps you could do very limited things like load a
    program (pps or other). Even that was desireable for limited memory
    or larger programs that needed even the space that PPS used.

    >Third, although I was very pleased a fellow named Ed Davis jumped in
    >and added the for statement, the autoincrement, autodecrement and not
    >unaries, I have no interest in making tiny-c K&R complete. I like it
    >tiny. It's easier to program in that way. I actually like struggling a
    >bit to get a limited resource language to do fancy stuff.
    >
    >I've mentioned "Toby Speak" in this thread somewhere. It takes a text
    >file and "translates" it into a bogus language that claims to be how
    >my friend's cat Toby might have said it. This has been A LOT of fun to
    >write. It's quite a complicated program which is why I have spent
    >countless hours documenting it in http://primepuzzle.com/tc/tobee.tc.html.
    >If you look at this doc side by side with the source code, you get a
    >feeling for how capable this language is (and how tricky it can be to
    >get something to work).
    >
    >Since tiny-c/PC is, at present, only partially documented (thru a few
    >pages I've posted and the sample programs) it may be too much to
    >suggest a few people take a whack at writing something in it. I'm
    >constantly referring to the book. My write, run, debug cycle is
    >typically VERY long. But, limited though it may be in all the ways it
    >is, I kind of wish this gang would spend a little time trying to USE
    >it, rather than wishing it were better.


    I have the original 8080 Tiny-C as bought back in the late '70s.
    I heard Scott and a few others talk at PCC about C and and TinyC
    and decided I wanted something other than BASIC. Since the
    book and disk were inexpensive I did it. I still run it (It's On NS*
    horizon 5.25 hard sector single density floppies) on the Horizon I
    have from time to time. It never really met my needs as it was
    an interpreter (read slow) and I wanted compiled code for some
    speed and compactness even though I had the blazing fast z80/4mhz
    and a whopping 56k of ram. I would go with BDS-C for that.

    Allison
    >
    >Lee



+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3