The Birth of.... BASIC!

JackKirk

JackKirk

Well-Known Member
Licensed User
Longtime User
BlueVision said:
Very interesting!
How did you do this in principle? The point is to translate an interpreter programme into an independently running programme. In my imagination, the interpreter programme is then broken down line by line into its components and replaced by a kind of "construction kit routine" in assembler? Just curious...
Click to expand...
This is many moons ago...

My recollection is that the interpreter was quite easy - the "compiler" basically just did a whole lot of stuff around equations to speed things up.

The big problem initially was that FORTRAN IV had no real string handling facilities - we devised a subroutine that did this rather laboriously but it was as slow as a wet week - then we got a 370/Assembler programmer to write a substring routine and it ran like stink.

We could run it from IBM 3250/5080 graphics terminals (and compatibles) or IBM 3270 dumb terminals (and compatibles).

Its claim to fame was that a person with very limited programming skills could now do what used to require a FORTRAN IV programmer with knowledge of the low level API used to interface to the CADAM system.

Unfortunately the FORTRAN IV programmers generally had a poor idea of what the requirement was - so there were lots of speedhumps.

It could also debug interactively which the FORTRAN IV programmer couldn't.
 
D

dlfallen

Active Member
Licensed User
Longtime User
Yes, an 8088. The original IBM XT (model 5150) used an 8088 because it was cheaper and and available in greater numbers than the 8086. The Book8088 is a functional clone of the 5150, but in a notebook form with a 512MB compact flash for storage, and a USB port for more storage (or sneakernet). No floppy, of course, but has an ISA connector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top