bb88 an hour ago

Reminds me of AREXX on the amiga.

REXX was an okay enough language for the time, but the real benefit was not needing to install a compiler -- which required more memory typically than my Amiga had, IIRC.

Meanwhile in college everyone had the 486 chip that could fit in a 386 socket. And I would have bought one, but I was broke. I ended up getting a pentium system with 64MB of ram that ran Linux after my first job.

fredoralive 4 hours ago

Although you could get Python 1.x for 68k Macs already: https://homepages.cwi.nl/~jack/macpython/macpython-older.htm... (the "Even older" bit mentions that 1.5.2 is the last 68k version).

Admittedly, I think this Micropython port is seemingly more targeting a Mac Plus, whilst I suspect the original Mac Python would probably prefer a Quadra (or a PowerMac).

  • fzzzy 2 hours ago

    It seems like it might not be that hard to port all the classic mac os code from python 1.5.2 to this.

nxobject 3 hours ago

One detail that I'd be interested to see are startup times for the MicroPython environment. Having compiled both Lua and Duktape (an embedded friendly ES7 runtime) for a Macintosh Classic, morally a Plus, I regularly got startup times of up to a minute - I think most of it due to the sheer size of the resulting binaries and standard libraries.