Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucrmath!spahn!rhyde
From: rhyde@spahn.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Computer capabilities
Message-ID: <10896@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 91 00:29:19 GMT
References: <325@generic.UUCP> <10827@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <1991Jan4.122840.14246@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu
Reply-To: rhyde@spahn.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Lines: 16

>> I've always wondered if that was a fact of life or it's really something
>> wrong with the way compilers are designed...

Probably both, actually.  Having taught compilers at the undergraduate level
and actually written a compiler for the 6502/65802, I can tell you that it's
possible to write a good compiler for the 6502 (mine wasn't), but it's an
incredible amount of work.  Far more than anyone I know is willing to put in
for the meager return they're going to get on their investment.  Even though
Apple was (emphasis on past tense) feeding Byteworks $50,000/year for the 
APW license, I'm impressed that Mike Westerfield put as much as he did into
ORCA/Pascal and ORCA/C (didn't stop me from asking him for C++ though!).
Nonetheless, ORCA/C has a *long* way to go before typical PC developers would
consider using it to port their products to the GS (and speed, both of the
compiler and compiled code, is only part of the problem).

*** Randy Hyde