Not strictly Commodore related, and although many Commodore computers used
the 6510 I would assume the stated problems would also target it.

Like most of you I enjoy nostalgia. And often read old magazines. Like
the BYTE February 1984 now, which is all about benchmarks (besides
introducing a brand new computer called Macintosh ;-).

Towards the end of that issue they test Pascal compilers. While reading
this I stumbled across the following paragraph:

| If compilers offer so many advantages over assemblers and interpreters,
| then why aren't compiled languages more common in the microcomputer
| world? Unfortunately, many of the early microprocessors, such as the
| 6502, are unsuitable for use with compiled languages. In particular,
| the limited stack and lack of 16-bit arithmetic on the 6502 make it
| hard to write a good compiler for that machine. Just five distinct
| high-level languages for the Apple II Pascal, FORTH, BASIC, Sweet 16,
| and FORTRAN are available, according to a BYTE article by Jim Gilbreath
| and Gary Gilbreath [...]. It is not known how many of these languages
| are compiled, but from the fact that these languages are between 10 and
| 200 times slower than 6502 assembly language, it is apparent that the
| 6502 is not the machine of choice for high-level languages.

But is that really true that only five languages were available for the
6502? And would other 8-bit CPU have the same issues then?
--
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05