[Coco] CoCo needs?

[Boisy G. Pitre]

On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:06 PM, James Dessart wrote:


>

> On 8-Mar-05, at 9:21 PM, KnudsenMJ at aol.com wrote:

>

>> Tremendous things have been done with the existing C system -- should 

>> we be

>> wasting the best talent trying to forge slightly better tools, 

>> instead of

>> working on apps?  ISTR this argument being raised 10 and 15 years  

>> ago.

>>

>> Sorry if this sounds argumentative, but I'm confused here.  Remind me 

>>  why we

>> need another C compiler.  Thanks, Mike K.

>

> Because no one who can program in C, in their spare time, is likely to 

> use OS-9 hosted development tools. While handy in its time, it does 

> not provide a convenient venue for software development, due to a 

> probably large number of limitations. Limited editor screen size, the 

> inconvenience of switching back and forth if using a CoCo-external 

> editor, limited memory, disk space and speed, combined with the 

> inconvenience of either using a CoCo straight, or firing up an 

> emulator just to write code and compile it. Add to that the fact that 

> any code you might want to reuse is in ANSI C, and there are very few 

> reasons to stick with an OS-9 hosted development tool.


I will admit that I have become spoiled with the cross-platform 
development methodology.  I've been editing and assembling NitrOS-9 
modules under Linux for about 8 years now, and it's an absolute dream 
in terms of speed and productivity.  Having a C compiler to do the same 
thing would be stellar.

True, we have K&R Microware C.  There are kludges to make it semi-ANSI 
compliant; it does indeed generate "ok" code.  But in the end, we are 
limited by either using it on a real CoCo or through an emulator.  
Either way presents limitations that I think are unwieldy given today's 
computers and tools.  Using a cross-hosted C compiler like SDCC also 
gives us support outside of just the CoCo as well.  There are a ton of 
benefits for moving to such a tool chain.


> These are the pragmatic issues which make it such that very few people 

> are writing decently cool stuff. All the Cloud-9 drivers, as far as I 

> know, are developed and built with a PC or Mac hosted assembler. Boisy 

> or Mark correct me if I'm wrong on this. The simple fact of the matter 

> is that those of us capable of writing software do not want to work 

> within the limitations of a CoCo-hosted development suite, we just 

> want to work within the machine's space and speed limitations when 

> dealing with our code. The hard part should be the part that makes 

> everyone go "wow," not just getting through editing a source code 

> file.


I agree with James totally.  Yes, at Cloud-9, software development is 
done on a Linux and/or Mac system.  For me, there is no going back, and 
I want to bring the convenience of high level language CoCo development 
to the fore with an open-source tool chain like SDCC.

Boisy