baggins@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Bill Segall) (11/22/90)
So, I'm sitting here writing a program and I suddenly realise that I can't check to see if the thing is the remotest bit 2.0 compatible cos I haven't got the 2.0 includes. Has Commodore released the 2.0 includes? I know they have released them to Lattice because their compiler comes with them, but I don't have Lattice. So, could someone from Commordore post them or circulate them via CATS or something? Would it be legal for me to copy those Commodore supplied includes from someone else, or for someone to mail them to me? Dice2.02 doesn't supply any. Does the latest version of Manx have them? Bill.
bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) (11/22/90)
In article <5862@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> baggins@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Has Commodore released the 2.0 includes? I know they have released them to >Lattice because their compiler comes with them, but I don't have Lattice. To the best of my knowledge they are not yet available through CATS. >So, could someone from Commordore post them or circulate them via CATS or >something? In good time :) >Would it be legal for me to copy those Commodore supplied includes from >someone else, or for someone to mail them to me? Not really. >Dice2.02 doesn't supply any. Does the latest version of Manx have them? The latest Manx release (5.0d) has them but you have to get it from them via the mail (you can't download the includes from their BBS, that is) bj >Bill. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. GEnie: B.J. | | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | | "Please Captain, not in front of the Klingons." | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
baggins@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Bill Segall) (11/23/90)
In <16035@cbmvax.commodore.com> bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) writes: >In article <5862@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> baggins@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>So, could someone from Commordore post them or circulate them via CATS or >>something? >In good time :) >>Would it be legal for me to copy those Commodore supplied includes from >>someone else, or for someone to mail them to me? >Not really. >>Bill. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. GEnie: B.J. | > | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | > | "Please Captain, not in front of the Klingons." | > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What is "good time". I would have thought that Commodore would like people to write software that is compatible with 2.0. The 3000 is a great machine but without lots of software it is doomed to be a marketing failure. The success of 2.0 depends on the software, and we can't write it, unless we get sufficient information/documentation. Here in Australia we are further hamstrung by the abject uselessness of Commodore Australia. If we had support like you do in the States then we might have a chance. In summary, I believe it is time Commodore made available a preliminary version of all documentaion/information necessary/useful to program 2.0 compatible software. To not do so, is short-sighted and frustrating to people attempting to program, when they knopw they will have to rewrite this stuff in 6 months. Also, the stuff I write now, will probably not run on the 3000, or on the 500/2000 runnning 2.0 *if* that ever happens. Give us a break *please*. Bill.
ewout@topcat.commodore.com (Ewout Walraven) (11/26/90)
baggins@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Bill Segall) writes: >In <16035@cbmvax.commodore.com> bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) writes: >>In article <5862@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> baggins@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>>So, could someone from Commordore post them or circulate them via CATS or >>>something? >>In good time :) >>>Would it be legal for me to copy those Commodore supplied includes from >>>someone else, or for someone to mail them to me? >>Not really. >>>Bill. >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. GEnie: B.J. | >> | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | >> | "Please Captain, not in front of the Klingons." | >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >What is "good time". I would have thought that Commodore would like people >to write software that is compatible with 2.0. The 3000 is a great machine >but without lots of software it is doomed to be a marketing failure. The >success of 2.0 depends on the software, and we can't write it, unless we >get sufficient information/documentation. Here in Australia we are further >hamstrung by the abject uselessness of Commodore Australia. If we had >support like you do in the States then we might have a chance. >In summary, I believe it is time Commodore made available a preliminary >version of all documentaion/information necessary/useful to program 2.0 >compatible software. To not do so, is short-sighted and frustrating to >people attempting to program, when they knopw they will have to rewrite >this stuff in 6 months. Also, the stuff I write now, will probably not run >on the 3000, or on the 500/2000 runnning 2.0 *if* that ever happens. >Give us a break *please*. CATS makes preliminary information available to registered developers. If you were a registered developer, you would have the information you're seeking for from the earliest stage on. If you follow the programming guidelines, you don't have to rewrite or even change your program for 2.0. If you know now your programming work will not function properly on an A3000 w/2.0 might want to start removing the 'trickyness' from your code to make it generally compatible with OS upgrades. When the include files and autodocs are finalized, CATS will sell them in the 2.0 Native Developer Update, also containing example code for all new/ improved functions in 2.0, tools etc. which you can order from Australia when you cannot get them there as fast as you wish. We do not feel it is a good thing to distribute information which is still subject to change, to the general public. It does more harm than good. "Good time" means we're happy with the information we're about to provide. >Bill.