[Coco] NitrOS-9 Nightly Build -- Where we are

[Aaron Wolfe]

There are many reasons to use lwasm, but the primary one I see is that
lwasm is actively maintained whereas mamou is not (in fact the move from
mamou to lwasm was encouraged by the author of mamou).
Lwasm has excellent documentation, a wealth of features, better error
reporting,  and it generates more optimized code than mamou.  Smaller bins
is a Good Thing.  I believe lwasm also corrects some long standing
bugs/unplanned features found in mamou.  LostWizard could probably mention
additional benefits.  I have been using lwasm with great results for some
time now, its nice.  Don't be afraid of her.
 On Oct 10, 2012 1:05 PM, "Willi Kusche" <CoCo at wilserv.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Boisy wrote:
> > Here's the skinny: the move to lwasm has apparently broken the build of
> NitrOS-9 due to the difference between lwasm and
> > mamou in processing definition settings on the command line.  Mamou's
> rule is that the command line takes precedence over
> > the same name in the source; lwasm's is just the opposite.
> > William Astle is the lwasm author.  I've asked him how difficult it
> would be to change lwasm to accommodate the behavior that
> > mamou has (as an extension to lwasm, not to replace it). He claims it
> wouldn't be easy to change, and is not open to
> > changing it in any case.
> > That leaves us with two options:
> > 1) Abandon lwasm and go back to mamou
> <--- snip --->
>
>     I'm for that option, for a selfish reason.  I've been
> disassembling the modules comprising the OS-9 released for the
> Stellation II Mill card for the Apple II in an attempt to create
> source that matches available source for OS-9/NitrOS-9.  I've become
> VERY comfortable with "MAMOU".  One vote for "MAMOU"!
>
> Willi
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>