I sold a programmer kit for 68HC05 a few months ago. Inside it was a 
diskette with
a byte craft compiler (or maybe an assembler?) . It was still readable, 
no read errors.
early 1990's, methinks.

--Bob A

Matt Pobursky wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:36:22 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
>   
>> Walter, I was kidding. I know your stuff is good.
>>     
>
> Bob,
>
> It was Byte Craft Ltd.'s C6805 compiler that really turned my head in the C
> vs. asm "war" all the way back in the late 80's or very early 90's. I was
> working on a 6805 project and the client insisted the code be written in C.
> I was resistant and tossed out all the arguments that have run their course
> in this thread in favor of asm. I had about 7 or 8 years of 6805 assembler
> programming experience and would say if not an expert at least very
> experienced.
>
> After I wrote my first few short programs with the C6805 compiler I was
> astonished that the code was as compact as I'd write -- in fact much of the
> code was translated exactly as I'd write the assembler. In some cases (and
> this is where Walter is really correct) the compiler did things that
> weren't immediately intuitive on inspection but in reality saved code
> space, execution time or both.
>
> We write our code here almost entirely in C now, even for the tiny
> processors. The C compilers for embedded micros have gotten so good that
> it's difficult to find a truly bad one these days. Most are quite
> excellent.
>
> Matt Pobursky
> Maximum Performance Systems
>   

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist