I wonder if Elixir is "secure". As it opens ports...
I'm using x86 ASM, C, C++, Java and Python.
The only problem is that I couldn't find a COBOL compiler for FreeBSD that accepts the sources we write at school (with a proprietary compiler). I guess that COBOL must be quite standardized, maybe I just don't know how to write portable code with it. But it's not like I want to dig in this horrible language anyway. :x
The tool I use the most is Emacs. I also use SCons and Doxygen.
What I like with FreeBSD is that with only the first CD I have a quite complete programming environment with GCC, vi, common headers and libaries, Python and so on.
As an academic curiosity sure, but why...just why? BASIC, even with added extensions, is not great language, given the other options available. Of course I started with DEC BASIC and TRS80 ROM BASIC back in the stone age, then was forced to use the MS-BASIC hacks in the days of segmented PC memory models. Yuk!...brings back too many bad memories. LOLI use gcc for software development, and am working on a BASIC compiler for BSD. BASIC is under-represented in Unix altogether, and there don't appear to actually be any BASIC compilers for BSD, just a small amount of interpreters that "also compile in BSD". I don't use any other languages or compilers though, and I don't really know how many other languages are under-represented here.
PERL? Is that a languge, or just garbled serial transmission line noise?Haskell, C and Python. Vim as the IDE.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Perl yet.
gcc
with no result. I use FBSD 13.1.disk.iso.Ok, that's one of these "not sure if trolling" moments (nota bene 13.1 will be EoL by the end of this month) ... let's assume it isn't:I trygcc
with no result. I use FBSD 13.1.disk.iso.
cc
should invoke the system's default compiler. So, just use this if you want to compile some C code (for C++, it would be, surprise, c++
instead). On your typical GNU/Linux system, they will invoke gcc (or, g++). gcc
in the base install. If you really want (or, need) gcc for whatever reason, you can install it from ports/packages. Most of the time, you don't.A long, long time ago when I was at IBM, I wanted to test Microsoft compiled BASIC on the IBM PC 8088 against an Atari 800.As an academic curiosity sure, but why...just why? BASIC, even with added extensions, is not great language, given the other options available. Of course I started with DEC BASIC and TRS80 ROM BASIC back in the stone age, then was forced to use the MS-BASIC hacks in the days of segmented PC memory models. Yuk!...brings back too many bad memories. LOL
Is a file transfer protocol really a valid test for such platforms though? I would suspect that the majority of bottleneck in the 8088 would be IO related since that was about the time that DOS started running defense between user programs and hardware accesss. I cannot remember if the UART was directly addressed via IN/OUT instructions or if the BASIC COMMs stuff went thru a seriously unoptimized abstraction layer in DOS.A long, long time ago when I was at IBM, I wanted to test Microsoft compiled BASIC on the IBM PC 8088 against an Atari 800.
The test case was the Zmodem file transfer protocol I wrote in BASCOM for the PC and the Atari BASIC cartridge for the 800.
Despite the Atari running interpreted and the PC running compiled, the Atari wiped the floor with the IBM.
Bank switching the 808x processors just required you keep your head clear about what goes where.
Bank switching the add-on EMM cards was more bank switching but opened up a far larger (segmented) address space, which I never needed.
I switched to TASM and Borland C in those days to get away from the MS bloat.
The technical jargon is over my head. So you created the 0880 chip. Was Gates your buddy?A long, long time ago when I was at IBM, I wanted to test Microsoft compiled BASIC on the IBM PC 8088 against an Atari 800.
The test case was the Zmodem file transfer protocol I wrote in BASCOM for the PC and the Atari BASIC cartridge for the 800.
Despite the Atari running interpreted and the PC running compiled, the Atari wiped the floor with the IBM.
Bank switching the 808x processors just required you keep your head clear about what goes where.
Bank switching the add-on EMM cards was more bank switching but opened up a far larger (segmented) address space, which I never needed.
I switched to TASM and Borland C in those days to get away from the MS bloat.
This was IIRC called QDOS (QD for quick and dirty) and actually, MS fiddled a bit with it before it went to IBM. But the interesting part is this: It wasn't "sold" to IBM, but licensed in a way that ensured MS would be paid for copies and reserve all rights. That's because MS learned their lesson before with their real own product "Altair BASIC", later "Microsoft BASIC", which was licensed to manufacturers often in a way that they paid once and could do with it what they wanted, Commodore being a notable customer here ?Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computer, then re-sold it to IBM for a ton of bux.. the rest is history.
And the "funny" part is: QDOS was heavily "inspired" by CP/M (or, you could say, it was a weak imitation of CP/M). It also attempted to "improve" things, like e.g. support for the CP/M devices, which were IIRC only implemented in CP/M's "pip" tool, in a more generic way – and got THAT horribly wrong. There's a reason you still can't name a file e.g. con.txt in Windows. ?... CP/M ...
I don't know if PL\I is implementen in any FreeBSD.Which langage are you using ? Is someone using a langage for wich no compiler/interpreter is available under FreeBSD ?
It's nearly impossible to find an open-source and free PL/I compiler. The only compiler I know of for Linux is shipped as a compiled binary, but it is free to download.I don't know if PL\I is implementen in any FreeBSD.
If a compiler is impossible to find, I'd think that's a strike against it being good for OS development... unlike GCC or LLVM. T.TAnd it is completely impossible to find any compiler for PL/S, even though it is a very good language for operating systems development.
That's what perl(1) has to say:PERL? Is that a languge, or just garbled serial transmission line noise?
Perl actually stands for Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister, but
don't tell anyone I said that.
What is LLMV? I learned PL/I using it on a mainframe in the 70s.If a compiler is impossible to find, I'd think that's a strike against it being good for OS development... unlike GCC or LLVM. T.T
That is one of the reasons I like tcl, but now it grew and has a lot of commands.In particular I can't really get into any of the usual scripting languages. It requires too my memory than I need for other things.