Pocket Lisp Machine
in [Lisp]
|
From: Ari Johnson on 25 Sep 2006 18:13 GP lisper <spambait(a)CloudDancer.com> writes: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:26:39 -0400, <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> GP lisper <spambait(a)CloudDancer.com> writes: >> >>> I have an application that needs lisp and some stealth[1]. Recently >>> I've been looking at TI calculators, since they have some interesting >>> specs, in this case a 68000 processor, the same as in early Macs. >> >> I was working a bit on a Lisp for my TI-85 (z80-based) at one point or >> another. The problem was that garbage collection is not as much fun >> to do with a z80 as it might sound like. I don't have a TI-89, but I >> think it might be less work to create a new, simple Lisp for it than >> to port a Macintosh Lisp (which likely is 90% interface to the OS and >> 10% 68k code generation). > > GUI overhead probably wouldn't be that bad, it would be sensible to > separate the GUI and lisp afterall. One of the things I do know about > early macs is that they did have a command-line if you knew the > tricks. I also vaguely remember some sort of lisp in those early > beasts. I agree that getting something non-Mac but 68000 would be > best, I just don't know where ancient software might be hidden > nowdays. > > I though about the TI-85 too, since I was a pretty good CP/M and ZCPR3 > hacker (some archives still have my 'make' for ZCPR3). Thanks for the > GC pointer there, the ebay price difference between these two models > doesn't seem enough to go back to 8 bits. There is a CP/M lisp > somewhat 'freely' available BTW and faking enough of the CP/M API to > get by is not that difficult. I have someone's '8kLisp' for the Z80. It looked like too much work to port to the TI-85. If I were eBaying, I'd get the TI-89. I, however, own a TI-85 already so I am naturally more prone to hack on the z80. That said, I did do some work on a TI-89 Lisp over the summer. I wonder if I still have it somewhere.
From: Jecel on 25 Sep 2006 18:42 GP lisper wrote: > I though about the TI-85 too, since I was a pretty good CP/M and ZCPR3 > hacker (some archives still have my 'make' for ZCPR3). Thanks for the > GC pointer there, the ebay price difference between these two models > doesn't seem enough to go back to 8 bits. There is a CP/M lisp > somewhat 'freely' available BTW and faking enough of the CP/M API to > get by is not that difficult. Back in 1990 I designed a Z80 based Lisp calculator. The idea was to run CP/M and then muLisp and muMath on top of that. Since this was a commercial project licensing these three programs wouldn't have been a problem. The project was cancelled when the person I was doing this for decided his company wasn't up to the task of making a product "with so many little buttons"... http://www.derive-europe.com/theroots.asp?history -- Jecel
From: nallen05 on 25 Sep 2006 19:00 GP lisper wrote: > I have an application that needs lisp and some stealth[1]. Recently > I've been looking at TI calculators, since they have some interesting > specs, in this case a 68000 processor, the same as in early Macs. There is a basic scheme for ti-89 http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/370/37098.html but there are also much more mature c->6800 and c++->6800 compilers. Would it be easier to use figure out how to interact with the OS with thinlisp or ecl and compile the generated c to 6800 with a tried and true c->6800 compiler? Nick ps this all sounds very shady ;-)
From: Pascal Bourguignon on 25 Sep 2006 19:35 nallen05(a)gmail.com writes: > GP lisper wrote: >> I have an application that needs lisp and some stealth[1]. Recently >> I've been looking at TI calculators, since they have some interesting >> specs, in this case a 68000 processor, the same as in early Macs. > > There is a basic scheme for ti-89 > > http://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/370/37098.html > > but there are also much more mature c->6800 and c++->6800 compilers. > Would it be easier to use figure out how to interact with the OS with > thinlisp or ecl and compile the generated c to 6800 with a tried and > true c->6800 compiler? C++ on 6800 that must be funny. With only 64KB adressable... http://www.cpu-world.com/Arch/6800.html -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ ATTENTION: Despite any other listing of product contents found herein, the consumer is advised that, in actuality, this product consists of 99.9999999999% empty space.
From: GP lisper on 25 Sep 2006 19:27
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:13:50 -0400, <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> wrote: > GP lisper <spambait(a)CloudDancer.com> writes: > >> I though about the TI-85 too, since I was a pretty good CP/M and ZCPR3 >> hacker (some archives still have my 'make' for ZCPR3). Thanks for the >> GC pointer there, the ebay price difference between these two models >> doesn't seem enough to go back to 8 bits. There is a CP/M lisp >> somewhat 'freely' available BTW and faking enough of the CP/M API to >> get by is not that difficult. > > I have someone's '8kLisp' for the Z80. It looked like too much work > to port to the TI-85. CP/M API consisted of two pieces, a jump vector at absolute address 005h and a table of BIOS jump vectors in high memory (usually about 2k below the top). OS calls went thru the 005h jump and only about 20 existed. The BIOS jump vectors matched the CP/M system calls to the actual routines. There is sample and actual source code available that isn't hard to understand for a decent Z80 programmer. Runtime CP/M code was non-relocatable and expected to start at 100h. You really only need some way to map into the 'file system' and the video, most CP/M programs only used 3-5 system calls to accomplish that. When I was looking at the TI-85, I saw that I could run CP/M inside it pretty easily. You just need some chording method to map the keys to 'qwerty'. The gotcha in this idea is the 160x100 dot screen alas. -- Reply-To email is ignored. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |