Problems with CalcCapture

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 4:03 pm

No offense to those of you who possess 82's, but why would an 82 version of Pindur TI take first priority over an 83+. More people have an 83+. Besides, I would imagine that an 83+ version of Pindur TI would have more similarities to the current 83 version. In other words, wouldn't it be easier to make? Anyways, keep up the good work, Cobb.

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 4:15 pm

82 are alot closer to an 83 than an 83 is to an 83+. the flash is gonna take some time, it's not as simple as unlock then ldir, the flash is actual hardware and is a bit compilcated.

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 4:17 pm

I guess I forgot about the flash...

Timendus · Post by **Timendus** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 8:20 pm

Kevin wrote:how do I port my grayscale RPG in BASIC to the 83?

Ah, yes, Basic... I forgot that's still concidered a programming language by some...

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 8:26 pm

The 82 is almost the same as the 83, and I've already done it--in about five minutes. I know most people are plus owners, but I'm not among them, which you must admit is a strong argument against them.

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 8:35 pm

That kinda sucks, You've pretty much dissected the 83. I would have like to seen you do that with the 83+, (or 83+se for that matter).

Theres only so much documentation out there on the hardware, Despite what is known there is still alot not known. Without testing your self you can only go on others words.

Oh well, at this point it's better than VTI.

What are chances of you emulating the 83+SE?

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 9:05 pm

Timendus wrote:
Kevin wrote:how do I port my grayscale RPG in BASIC to the 83?
Ah, yes, Basic... I forgot that's still concidered a programming language by some...

It is a programming language...

DJ_O · Post by **DJ_O** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 9:16 pm

Yeah it is, since the structure is almost the same that most high level languages around, just with a different syntax. You can program quite good games with basic if you know what you are doing (*cough* contra *cough*) but of course don't expect to make a Raycaster FPS with this language, since the interpreter is poorly optimised for speed.

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 9:23 pm

No, TI-BASIC is a batch language, not a real high level language. Even the ancient versions of Fortran had better control constructs, so its structure is very far from being 'the same' as that of others.

Timendus · Post by **Timendus** » Thu 21 Apr, 2005 9:54 pm

An arithmetic scripting language is the coolest name I can give it

; no offence Kevin, you do great things with it, but it's no real programming language. Common, it doesn't even have functions (or subs, routines, whatever you want to call them), it just executes command after command after command, with only very basic program flow control. That makes it a script or a batch file if you ask me, not a program.

DJ_O · Post by **DJ_O** » Fri 22 Apr, 2005 1:16 am

LOL, batch files based games,

but sorry that still doesnt hold me back from programming basic unless they decide to ban me from this forum because I dont want to learn ASM , as I tried many times learning asm and could not figure out how everything operate and there is no decent and powerful enough compiled language avaliable for z80 calcs. If only TIGCC was ported to z80 calcs.

Some people would want to teach me but I guarantee them that they will spends weeks and weeks of pleasure trying to make me understand how a stack operate

Spencer · Post by **Spencer** » Fri 22 Apr, 2005 1:38 am

Plates at a restaurant. There are C to Z80 crosscompilers, you know.

DJ_O · Post by **DJ_O** » Fri 22 Apr, 2005 1:40 am

z88dk I know but I was meaning GOOD C compilers

z88dk is slow and the code is huge, much like TI power gold

Shadow Phoenix · Post by **Shadow Phoenix** » Fri 22 Apr, 2005 3:43 pm

Kevin wrote:

Some people would want to teach me but I guarantee them that they will spends weeks and weeks of pleasure trying to make me understand how a stack operate

Kevin: I am not that knowladgebla to use stacks...yet. But that doesnt make me any less of an ASM programmer

.

Timendus · Post by **Timendus** » Fri 22 Apr, 2005 4:18 pm

Stacks are easy, and the Ti has only one... I am fairly sure that you will be able to understand these pieces of BASIC:

Code: Select all

PROGRAM:PUSHA
augment(L1,{A})->L1

PROGRAM:PUSHB
augment(L1,{B})->L1

PROGRAM:POPA
L1(dim(L1))->A
Disp A
dim(L1)-1->dim(L1)
Disp L1

PROGRAM:POPB
L1(dim(L1))->B
Disp B
dim(L1)-1->dim(L1)
Disp L1

That's how push and pop work; there's one stack (L1 here), and several variables whose value can be put into it (A and B in this case) or to which you can pop values from the stack. Try this* on your calc, and it should become quite clear how it works. You don't need weeks and weeks for that... If you can understand this BASIC code, you can understand how to use stacks.

*: For instance: 5->A, 3->B, {0,0,0}->L1, PushA, PushB, PushB, PopA, PopB, PopA