>Most programmers today
>see some API or platform as their working base, which is IMHO like
>standing on a cloud - they don't see the transistors etc. Would they
>be capable to build a computer from scratch? A mechanical cash register?
>A hydraulic-based computer?
>
> But you can't make money with
> I know nothing about the first program, executed by the first computer,
> if that's what you are asking, but I guess it was probably written by
> hand in machine language.
>
That leads to the "first program that ran the first software program" actually
being a hardware program. The
transistors
L505 wrote:
>>I know nothing about the first program, executed by the first computer,
>>if that's what you are asking, but I guess it was probably written by
>>hand in machine language.
>>
>
>
> That leads to the "first program that ran the first software program"
> actually being a hardware pr
Am Montag, den 22.08.2005, 14:12 +0200 schrieb Anton Tichawa:
> Marc Santhoff wrote:
>
> >Am Sonntag, den 21.08.2005, 16:19 -0700 schrieb L505:
> >
> >
> >>>The first compilers were written in assembly language. This allowed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>for
> >>
> >>
> >>>the next generation compil
Marc Santhoff wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 21.08.2005, 16:19 -0700 schrieb L505:
The first compilers were written in assembly language. This allowed
for
the next generation compilers to be written in a high level language.
And the assembly language was just magically inserted
Am Sonntag, den 21.08.2005, 16:19 -0700 schrieb L505:
> > The first compilers were written in assembly language. This allowed
> for
> > the next generation compilers to be written in a high level language.
>
>
> And the assembly language was just magically inserted into the memory
> with that mag
> > The first compilers were written in assembly language. This allowed
> for
> > the next generation compilers to be written in a high level language.
>
>
> And the assembly language was just magically inserted into the memory
> with that magic script?
Any device that can enter data via I/O. Pu
L505 wrote:
The first compilers were written in assembly language. This allowed
for
the next generation compilers to be written in a high level language.
And the assembly language was just magically inserted into the memory
with that magic script?
At some point it comes to a h
> The first compilers were written in assembly language. This allowed
for
> the next generation compilers to be written in a high level language.
And the assembly language was just magically inserted into the memory
with that magic script?
At some point it comes to a hardware etching level, I'm
L505 wrote:
Same applies to gcc ;) Without an older gcc you can't build a new one
except using a propritary compiler.
But where did that proprietary compiler come from? Hardware based?
Molecules, Ions, and atoms?
i.e. the answer to the big bang theory, the answer to religion, etc.
L505 wrote:
Same applies to gcc ;) Without an older gcc you can't build a new one
except using a propritary compiler.
But where did that proprietary compiler come from? Hardware based?
Molecules, Ions, and atoms?
i.e. the answer to the big bang theory, the answer to religion, etc.
Th
> Same applies to gcc ;) Without an older gcc you can't build a new one
> except using a propritary compiler.
>
But where did that proprietary compiler come from? Hardware based?
Molecules, Ions, and atoms?
i.e. the answer to the big bang theory, the answer to religion, etc.
_
Matt Emson wrote:
>>Is there some posibility to make (compiling) fpc without fpc?
>>Is there some makefile or script in fpc (cvs) to avoid to use a fpc
>>1.0.0 or 2.0.0 to create a fpc new version?
>
>
> Cygwin runs exclusively on Windows machines... FPC has a Windows port.
> Whilst I can see th
> When going to a new platform, you'll always need to cross-compile.
> But this is the same for any C compiler.
And, as Cygwin is simply another target under Windows, the Windows compiler
is perfectly capable of "cross" compiling for Cygwin. In this case, "cross"
compiling is streatching the term
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, L505 wrote:
By the way, how would one compile Pascal code without a Pascal
compiler? No
magic script file will avoid the need for fpc.
I asked this question on C2 wiki once..
I guess you could start by hardcoding a binary program from scratch in a
text editor with yo
L505 wrote:
Neato.. offtopic but if anyone wondered, the delphi compiler is
originated from borland C++ as far as my tools told me.
Yes, actually DCC32 is written in C++. Only the Delphi IDE is written in
Delphi. FPC and Lazarus are both written in FPC :)
__
> No, FPC is entirely written in Pascal (just like gcc is written in C
> and not in assembler). The original bootstrap was with Turbo Pascal,
> but TP compatibility has been dropped a long time ago. It must be
> bootstrapped with itself now.
Neato.. offtopic but if anyone wondered, the delphi com
> By the way, how would one compile Pascal code without a Pascal
compiler? No
> magic script file will avoid the need for fpc.
I asked this question on C2 wiki once..
I guess you could start by hardcoding a binary program from scratch in a
text editor with your bare hands. Then you have the meani
> Okey,
> but I think that the first stage for make fpc is to compiling some asm
> or c files using binutils, right?
Incorrect.
> so in cygwin I have binutils, even gcc, how I shoud to do to create
> first fpc from ASMs or Cs files?
You can't, FPC is written in pascal.
___
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Jose Pascual wrote:
> > Is there some posibility to make (compiling) fpc without fpc?
> > Is there some makefile or script in fpc (cvs) to avoid to use a fpc
> > 1.0.0 or 2.0.0 to create a fpc new version?
>
> IIRC, fpc 1.0.0 can be made with tur
On 16 aug 2005, at 21:44, Jose Pascual wrote:
Okey,
but I think that the first stage for make fpc is to compiling some asm
or c files using binutils, right?
No, FPC is entirely written in Pascal (just like gcc is written in C
and not in assembler). The original bootstrap was with Turbo Pasc
Okey,
but I think that the first stage for make fpc is to compiling some asm
or c files using binutils, right?
so in cygwin I have binutils, even gcc, how I shoud to do to create
first fpc from ASMs or Cs files?
>
> On 16 aug 2005, at 20:24, Jose Pascual wrote:
>
> > Is there some posibility t
> Is there some posibility to make (compiling) fpc without fpc?
> Is there some makefile or script in fpc (cvs) to avoid to use a fpc
> 1.0.0 or 2.0.0 to create a fpc new version?
Cygwin runs exclusively on Windows machines... FPC has a Windows port.
Whilst I can see the point of a port to Cygwin,
On 16 aug 2005, at 20:24, Jose Pascual wrote:
Is there some posibility to make (compiling) fpc without fpc?
No.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Jose Pascual wrote:
Is there some posibility to make (compiling) fpc without fpc?
Is there some makefile or script in fpc (cvs) to avoid to use a fpc
1.0.0 or 2.0.0 to create a fpc new version?
IIRC, fpc 1.0.0 can be made with turbo pascal 7.
Vincent.
__
Is there some posibility to make (compiling) fpc without fpc?
Is there some makefile or script in fpc (cvs) to avoid to use a fpc
1.0.0 or 2.0.0 to create a fpc new version?
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Is there some 2.0 fpc release for cygwin?
> > If no, How can I build it starting from the scratch?
>
> Hi there,
>
> Is there some 2.0 fpc release for cygwin?
> If no, How can I build it starting from the scratch?
There is no release. If you want to start a cygwin special the best way is
to start with a unix target and adapt it for cygwin. Things like opening
files etc. all need to be done throug
Hi there,
Is there some 2.0 fpc release for cygwin?
If no, How can I build it starting from the scratch?
tia!
best regards
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
28 matches
Mail list logo
