Can I program C++ on the Sinclair ZX81?

[Ted Harvard]

I cannot afford a modern PC, so I'm looking for C++ on tape for the
ZX81.Where can I find it?

 

[Pete C.]

I cannot afford a modern PC, so I'm looking for C++ on tape for the
ZX81.Where can I find it?

How are you posting here?
Anyway, try Google, but I think the zx81 runs on a z80. I tried finding a
C++ compiler for the z80 a few months ago, but no luck. There was several C
compilers, though.

- Pete

 

[Jerry Coffin]

I cannot afford a modern PC, so I'm looking for C++ on tape for the
ZX81.Where can I find it?

The only one of which I'm aware is written in Java, so as soon as you
find a JVM for the ZX81, you're all set.
Later,
Jerry.

 

[Julie]

I cannot afford a modern PC, so I'm looking for C++ on tape for the
ZX81.Where can I find it?

If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you shouldn't be programming.

Programming *requires* a high level of commitment which includes the necessary
$$ to be able to purchase the necessary tools.

Either make the necessary commitments, or choose something else to do w/ your
time.

 

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you shouldn't be programming.

Why? You can be perfectly happy programming an old machine of the 80' in
some interpreted Basic, for example.

 

[JKop]

Julie posted:

If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you shouldn't be programming.

Programming *requires* a high level of commitment which includes the
necessary $$ to be able to purchase the necessary tools.

Either make the necessary commitments, or choose something else to do
w/ your time.

The C++ Standard defines no such terms as:

modern pc
a high level of commitment
$$

-JKop

 

[Pete C.]

If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you shouldn't be programming.

Programming *requires* a high level of commitment which includes the
necessary $$ to be able to purchase the necessary tools.

Either make the necessary commitments, or choose something else to do
w/ your time.

Why not? People used to get along fine with computers that had less power
than a modern $10 pocket calculator.
Old computers can do just as much as when they were made; they don't
magically deteriorate in processing power.

- Pete

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Why not? People used to get along fine with computers that had less power
than a modern $10 pocket calculator.

Not using Standard C++ language.

Old computers can do just as much as when they were made; they don't
magically deteriorate in processing power.

They don't by themselves. But you cannot consider computers outside
the context of using them with certain tools. I can program in C++
using Zortech C++ circa 1991 on a PC/AT of similar vintage, but I would
not be programming in C++ as it is known and used today.

Common mistake (IMNSHO) made often in Usenet discussions is giving
excessively generic statements in a conversation that starts about
something pretty concrete and limited in scope. Can one learn to
program on a Sinclair? Definitely. Can one learn to use C++ Templates
in their full capacity on a Sinclair? I strongly doubt that. One does
need a modern compiler for that and most (if not all) modern compilers
require pretty modern hardware/OS setup to be used.

What a Sinclair could be used for is to serve as a remote terminal to
a machine elsewhere. One would need a modem and a phone line for that
(and, no, I am not sure Sinclair had a modem, but I believe it could
have one).

V

 

[Jim Lynch]

I cannot afford a modern PC, so I'm looking for C++ on tape for the
ZX81.Where can I find it?

Does anyone else think this was a red herring?

--

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

I cannot afford a modern PC, so I'm looking for C++ on tape for the
ZX81.Where can I find it?

This is an obvious troll.
Please ignore it.

Notice that it was originally cross posted to alt.mythe.

 

[Pete C.]

Does anyone else think this was a red herring?

Yes, but it's a fun-to-discuss one

- Pete

 

[Pete C.]

Not using Standard C++ language.

The post I was responding to (Julie's) was talking about programming in
general.

Common mistake (IMNSHO) made often in Usenet discussions is giving
excessively generic statements in a conversation that starts about
something pretty concrete and limited in scope.

<snip>

Good point

- Pete

 

[Pete C.]

This is an obvious troll.
Please ignore it.

Notice that it was originally cross posted to alt.mythe.

Please explain, what makes everyone but you incapable of deciding what posts
we're allowed to respond to?

- Pete

 

[Old Wolf]

If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you shouldn't be programming.

Programming *requires* a high level of commitment which includes the necessary
$$ to be able to purchase the necessary tools.

Either make the necessary commitments, or choose something else to do w/ your
time.

This is rubbish. My school entered an inter-school BASIC programming
competition once. We had an Apple IIe (with line-editor and line numbers).
The others all had fancy Macs and PCs with cut-and-paste, and functions,
and so on. We hosed them all thoroughly.

 

[Julie]

This is rubbish. My school entered an inter-school BASIC programming
competition once. We had an Apple IIe (with line-editor and line numbers).
The others all had fancy Macs and PCs with cut-and-paste, and functions,
and so on. We hosed them all thoroughly.

So what are you disagreeing with?

Did you not make a commitment to learn/know BASIC?

Were the computers that you used without cost?

Are you saying that this isn't true? That you can program w/o commitment and
tools?

It is my impression that the OP isn't sincere in his intentions, or is out of
touch with alternative measures or the reality of the situation.

 

[marbac]

C++ maybe not ... but C might be available for Z80-Processors.
There is for example (one or more) for the 6502-Prozessors (C64).

 

[Old Wolf]

So what are you disagreeing with?

The line where you said "If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you
shouldn't be programming". Apple IIe far from a modern pc, and I was
programming.

 

[Julie]

The line where you said "If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you
shouldn't be programming". Apple IIe far from a modern pc, and I was
programming.

If you take parts of a statement and pull them out of context, you can make any
argument that you want.

These two sentences should *not* be separated, they aren't exclusive or
independent of each other:

If you can't afford a 'modern' pc, then you shouldn't be programming [C++].

Programming [C++] *requires* a high level of commitment which includes the necessary
$$ to be able to purchase the necessary tools.