Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ulowell!sky!hamill
From: hamill@sky.COM (John Hamill)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.8bit
Subject: Re: wanted - basic compiler
Message-ID: <510@sky.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 89 11:17:20 GMT
References: <1168@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> <2652@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <15887@cup.portal.com> <3201@ihlpm.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: hamill@sky.COM (John Hamill)
Organization: SKY Computers, Lowell MA
Lines: 14

In article <3201@ihlpm.ATT.COM> njd@ihlpm.ATT.COM (DiMasi) writes:
>In article <15887@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
>> I do agree though, that for sheer speed (almost as fast as 6502 assembly
>> code), the ACTION language was the winner..
>Why did you write this in the past tense?  Is there now a compiler that 
>produces faster object code than ACTION! ?  (Not that I would want it,
>I don't even have much time to write programs anymore, although I'm working
>on it...)

	Action might be the fastest compiler, but it is clearly a waste for 
anyone who wants to produce a useable program.

	If you want *real* compiler, use Mac65.