4 ms·
Which standards didn't it adhere to? Plenty of reasons not to use it for anything significant, but I've used numerous 6502 assemblers and the BBC BASIC syntax i
by tom_ 3y ago
Which standards didn't it adhere to? Plenty of reasons not to use it for anything significant, but I've used numerous 6502 assemblers and the BBC BASIC syntax is/was pretty normal. Standard mnemonics, standard addressing mode syntax, & for hex, . as a mandatory label prefix, and \ for comments - if this exact combination is unique, the overall appearance is well within the range of what counts as normal for this category of tool.
(Being able to put multiple instructions on one line is unusual, but it's also pretty useful.)
The assembler they used for in-house development did use a rather unique syntax: https://github.com/stardot/AcornOS120/blob/master/src/MOS48 https://github.com/stardot/AcornOS120/blob/master/src/MOS48
- jacquesm 3y agoThat is a very good question and I'm really sorry that I won't be able to answer it. All that I remember is that I took a bunch of source files from older projects (mostly KIM-1) and tried to import them into BBC basic assembler and ended up having to do a bunch of changes (for instance the '&' sign for hex numbers, instead of $) to get it to accept them, as well as some missing directives. But it's too long ago to remember the details, and I don't have any systems from that time anymore (except for my very first Sharp pocket computer :) ).