Comments on: Writing Tight 6502 Series Machine Code https://dfarq.homeip.net/writing-tight-6502-series-machine-code/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=writing-tight-6502-series-machine-code David L. Farquhar on technology old and new, computer security, and more Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:46:21 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dave Farquhar https://dfarq.homeip.net/writing-tight-6502-series-machine-code/#comment-6835 Wed, 25 May 2011 00:22:15 +0000 https://dfarq.homeip.net/?p=3468#comment-6835 I’m not familiar with that particular program, but it sounds completely plausible. A large percentage of commercial software for the 8-bit computers was written in machine language, often by one or two people. I probably wrote this very article with a word processor called Speedscript, which was written in machine language and published as a magazine type-in. It was about 6K in length. By today’s standards it was little more than a text editor, but it packed a lot of power into 6K. Notepad is 176K, and Speedscript did a handful of things that Notepad doesn’t.

I never got to be good enough to write something as ambitious as a word processor. And unfortunately, unlike a number of the people I was learning this stuff with, I never figured out how to apply any of what I knew about 8-bit machines to programming PCs. I couldn’t wrap my mind around object-oriented programming.

]]> By: Paul https://dfarq.homeip.net/writing-tight-6502-series-machine-code/#comment-6834 Tue, 24 May 2011 19:27:47 +0000 https://dfarq.homeip.net/?p=3468#comment-6834 Quite a bit out of my element here, but I’m curious. Were you ever familiar with Allwrite, a word processor written for the TRS-80? My understanding was that it was written in machine language by the author and his son. I (we) found it a very good program at the time that took advantage of 128 K of memory.

Paul

]]>