hjalfi wrote:
I can't help feeling that if you need to store your error messages on disk, your compiler is too damn big...
I have figured out that the original Comal interpreters probably passed to UniComal A/S, which was bought by Prolog Development Centre A/S, who still exist. I might drop them an email to see if they still have anyone who knows about it. I doubt it, but it can't do any harm.
But this has all got me wondering how hard writing a Comal interpreter could possibly be...
Easy for the openComal project...
https://www.josvisser.nl/opencomal/However while I can compile that on my Linux desktop, I can't run it, and I don't have the energy or time to work out why.
A couple of things though: The internals of Comal and BASIC will be pretty much the same, so you'll have a LOT of common code - all the line editing, load/save, arithmetic (integer/floating point) handling and so on will be common - a lot of the variable handling and parsing will be the same too - this might make the task of writing them easier - ie. write one and the other will not be hard to follow on.
However... Like my fondness of BCPL for my '816 board, I suspect that if you did get a Comal going, you might be the only programmer in the world who might use it ...
-Gordon
_________________
--
Gordon Henderson.
See my
Ruby 6502 and 65816 SBC projects here:
https://projects.drogon.net/ruby/