Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pro-europa.cts.com!nelson
From: nelson@pro-europa.cts.com (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Languages for an average //e ?
Message-ID: <8905251836.AA06012@crash.cts.com>
Date: 25 May 89 14:44:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!nelson@nosc.mil
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 19

Richard Secrist (secrist@decwrl.dec.com?)'s appeal for good languages for the
"average" //e - 128k, is worth considering. He has gone through a lot more
trouble than most //e programmers I know. I personally am not brave enough to
deal with Forth on a //e.

Anyway, I too am left with the sad conclusion that a //e is simply not capable
of supporting a good implementation of higher level languages. The memory is a
restriction as well as the microprocessor (which is the discussion in another
thread, if I am not mistaken) Perhaps the //e HAS been overstretched.

Again, I must mention the IInix project. There is talk about writing a C
compiler for the //e again.. Granted, we have Aztec C, but I've never talked
to anyone who was happy with it..

Anyway, development continues, and perhaps something good will come of it.
Personally, I'm ready to leave my battered // behind..

nelson@pro-europa.cts.com                                  cogito ergo non sum
...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!nelson