[Coco] CoCo needs?
Boisy G. Pitre
boisy at boisypitre.com
Tue Mar 8 23:39:52 EST 2005
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
>> 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
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.
More information about the Coco