secrist@msdsws.DEC.COM ("Richard C. Secrist") (05/24/89)
I'm addressing myself to all those ][ faithful programmers out there who haven't made the jump to a GS or elsewhere. I am not bemoaning any other class of Apple user, so please don't flame me. The Apple ][ family is a many splendored thing -- more power to everybody, whatever their purpose... If you're a programmer though, and you're going to stay with a 128K //e and a couple of floppies for whatever reason, the show really passes you by in terms of descent languages and stuff. If I wanted to spend bucks on hard disks and tons of RAM there seem to be plenty language environments and stuff that'd do okay. Mine is but an average box, and I'm hoping there is some neat language or tool that's passed me by that doesn't need 4 gigbytes online, or a GS. I've been a programmer forever, and have been feeding myself this way for the last 10 years. I have grow out of Applesoft, nice as it is for that sort of thing. So I tried Aztec C -- a nice package, but a dog to run on floppies. I moved on to CP/M -- tons of nice languages here, but they're all relative to the Z-80 coprocessor card and you lose the ability to do native graphics and things like that, and that loses. Well you don't lose them, but it's quite a long way around to get it to work. So I tried native FORTH. FORTH wins pretty big, but most of the implementations I've seen use direct physical i/o to the disk and don't support anything, let alone ProDOS. Even nicer FORTHs still don't to record I/O right to text files. GraFORTH is pretty cool, does wonderful native graphics and sound, and compiles to 6502 code executables... but InSoft went bankrupt before ProDOS was even let out of the stable. So really nice FORTH hasn't made it to ProDOS yet for the //e, and the GS killed any hope of software developement by commercial developers. To digress, I tried the UCSD environent for a couple of years. I didn't like being trapped in the menus, even if they worked pretty well... and I never did like Pascal through v1.1. The Fortran-77 was okay, since I speak that all day at work, but it was still UCSD and only a subset Fortran. Sigh. Assembler is great, but my productivity sucks. I guess there was a Pascal v1.3 and maybe an Instant Pascal -- maybe those are better. The idea of compiled BASICs makes me wince. So what now ? I try to paw through what is left of Apple magazines, and at the level I'm at it all seems like a bunch of Appleworks drivel or other luser toys I could care less about. Don't get me wrong -- that's fine for those people and good at it and all that, it's just no what I'm after. I know -- so upgrade my system. I have many other systems already to suit my many purposes... I was just hoping for something for an average Apple. Is there anybody out there who has found something neat who understands what I'm talking about ? Thanks, rcs.
nelson@pro-europa.cts.com (Nelson Minar) (05/25/89)
Richard Secrist (secrist@decwrl.dec.com?)'s appeal for good languages for the "average" //e - 128k, is worth considering. He has gone through a lot more trouble than most //e programmers I know. I personally am not brave enough to deal with Forth on a //e. Anyway, I too am left with the sad conclusion that a //e is simply not capable of supporting a good implementation of higher level languages. The memory is a restriction as well as the microprocessor (which is the discussion in another thread, if I am not mistaken) Perhaps the //e HAS been overstretched. Again, I must mention the IInix project. There is talk about writing a C compiler for the //e again.. Granted, we have Aztec C, but I've never talked to anyone who was happy with it.. Anyway, development continues, and perhaps something good will come of it. Personally, I'm ready to leave my battered // behind.. nelson@pro-europa.cts.com cogito ergo non sum ...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!nelson
ALBRO@NIEHS.BITNET (05/25/89)
Richard C. Secrist <secrist%msdsws.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM> writes ("Languages
for an average //e") that there do not seem to be very many new, neat
programming languages for an "average" 128K //e, the IIgs having absorbed
the efforts of the language makers.
I would suggest you take a look at Promal. It has (in my opinion) most
of the best features of both C and Pascal, and feels like a combination
of the two. There is a utility program (public domain) that will convert
between C source code and Promal code. The compiled programs run on
my //e, the IBM-PC, and Commodore (all I've tried them on). There is a
nice graphics toolkit for the //e, and the others. No, I don't work
for the company that produces Promal.
-Phil Albro-
ALBRO@NIEHS.BITNET) (05/26/89)
Network Comment: to #3925 by pnet01!crash!decwrl.dec.com!secrist%msdsws.DEC That's a terrific post. I haven't 1/10th the experience of half of you here, but I do know that there is a shortage of good compilers/languages for the older boxes. I have an unenhanced //e and I have enough trouble running software that uses the new roms and chips... After about 5 years of piddling with Applesoft (like it as I did), I just decided to take on assembly and mix the two for what I needed. Works pretty well, but I really want a swift C compiler to use! Unfortunately, I am on a strict cashflow, have heard terrible things about Aztec C (no offense to those who use it or (gasp) wrote it!), and don't have the ability to tie up my dollars into an expensive one. Alas, I wait until I can get my IBM PC running worth beans... Jason Hughes +-------------------------------- = --------------------------------+ ! Jason Hughes : ! ! ProLine: panther@pro-lep : "Nobody knows...(hic)...the ! ! Postal: 5812 Abilene Trails : Tribbles I've seen...(hic)" ! ! Austin, TX 78749 : ! +-------------------------------- = --------------------------------+