68K compilation is the tough part. Do you have a language preference?
The only current product (which I know of) which compiles for Mac OS X,
Classic, and still 68K, is FutureBasic by Staz Software:
http://stazsoftware.com/futurebasic/ . Code you compile in it can go
back as far as System 6.0.5 on a Mac Plus or better. (Not to be
confused with REALbasic, which dropped 68K support in 2002.)
Everything else I am aware of that can compile 68K are discontinued
versions of compilers. For C/C++ development (which is what you likely
have in mind), the last version of CodeWarrior that supported it was
Pro 6, released in 2000. Surprisingly, CW Pro 6 still runs fine on Mac
OS X in the Classic environment. (However, the Carbon code it
generates is unrleiable on modern Mac OS X, so use it only for your
Classic builds.) CW Pro 6 routinely crops up on Ebay from time to
time.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan Hoyle
> 68K compilation is the tough part. Do you have a language preference?
Yes, I know m68k language reference.
> The only current product (which I know of) which compiles for Mac OS X,
> Classic, and still 68K, is FutureBasic by Staz Software:
> http://stazsoftware.com/futurebasic/ . Code you compile in it can go
> back as far as System 6.0.5 on a Mac Plus or better. (Not to be
> confused with REALbasic, which dropped 68K support in 2002.)
Ok, thanks for information. I will look into that. Well, I now remember
that much older Mac OS system has BASIC interpreter. Which version(s) of OS
system has its own BASIC interpreter?
> Everything else I am aware of that can compile 68K are discontinued
> versions of compilers. For C/C++ development (which is what you likely
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Classic builds.) CW Pro 6 routinely crops up on Ebay from time to
> time.
Ok, thanks for some information. I had much difficult to find older version
of CW Pro 6 or below that supports 68k/PPC compilations for older Macs
through many sources like EBay, archives, etc. I only found much newer
versions but they only runs on Mac OS X (G4/Intel machine language).
Thanks!
Tim
Paul Russell - 18 Apr 2006 09:28 GMT
> Well, I now remember
> that much older Mac OS system has BASIC interpreter. Which version(s) of OS
> system has its own BASIC interpreter?
Perhaps you're thinking of the Apple ][ series, which had BASIC in ROM ?
The Mac and Mac OS have never had BASIC as standard.
Paul