🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 16:07:09 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
> <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 12:23:56 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 02/06/2018 03:44, John Levine wrote:
>>>> In article <cb11f87e-44a9-4f0b...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Quadibloc  <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dartmouth's compiler was quite impressive, typically compiling an
>>>> entire program in one or two clock ticks.  It was so fast that nobody
>>>> bothered to save object code.
>>> 
>>> Interesting, does that also indicate interactive development where
>>> the compilation speed would be largely unapparent?
>> 
>> I guess I am missing a link here. Why did none of the BASICs coming with
>> the 8bit micros need a compiler and rather interpret the code instead?
> 
> I think the real issue is the nature of a compiler and cost and
> availability of hardware.
> 
> A compiler takes a source program, generates an object program, and
> then to actually do anything you need to load and execute the object
> program.
> 
> To make this work you need to have enough storage of some kind (paper
> tape, mag tape, disk, drum, RAM, doesn't matter, you need to have
> enough) to store all the pieces.  Early micros did not have much RAM
> and typically if they had a storage device other than the operator's
> paper notebook it was paper tape or an audio cassette recorder, so
> turnaround time for compiled code would be slow.
> 
> An interpreter only needs storage for the source code, a scratchpad,
> and the output, so it can run reasonably well on a machine with
> limited RAM and a slow storage device, hence the popularity on early
> hobbyist micros (and yes, to the nits who think that hobbyists are
> only allowed to own toys, I mean the ALTAIR and its clones).
> 

Good point.

-- 
Pete