tlbaltad@pacengr.UUCP (Tim Baltad) (09/10/89)
I don't know about the rest of you, but the major changes in WorkBench make it sound like maybe it should be a full rev. Could this be it? Could it be? WB 2.0???
jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) (09/11/89)
In article <272@pacengr.UUCP> tlbaltad@pacengr.UUCP (Tim Baltad) writes: >I don't know about the rest of you, but the major changes in WorkBench >make it sound like maybe it should be a full rev. Could it be? WB 2.0??? Nah, they haven't broken enough things to call it 2.0 :-). Remember when MS-DOS went from version 1 to version 2? If the user wanted to specify which directory to store files, programs written for version 1 only needed to worry about A: and B:. When subdirectories were added to MS-DOS, all those old programs did not understand things like "C:\123\DATA\JULY89.DAT". Incrementing the major version number is reserved for major changes. It looks like 1.4 will be too compatible with 1.3 to be called 2.0. -- Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com McDonnell Douglas FSCO | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms PO Box 49019, MS-D21 | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P," San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"
cdouty@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Christopher Douty) (09/13/89)
In article <272@pacengr.UUCP> tlbaltad@pacengr.UUCP (Tim Baltad) writes: >I don't know about the rest of you, but the major changes in WorkBench >make it sound like maybe it should be a full rev. >Could this be it? Could it be? WB 2.0??? Nope. The Amiga crew has said several times that 2.0 will be an incompatible release where they joyfully get to break everything to make it all work right. :-) Christopher Douty cdouty@jarthur.claremont.edu with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; "Gun control is being with SILLY_QUOTE; use SILLY_QUOTE; able to hit your target"
ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (09/21/89)
In article <1883@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> cdouty@jarthur.UUCP (Christopher Douty) writes: > Nope. The Amiga crew has said several times that 2.0 will be an >incompatible release where they joyfully get to break everything to make it >all work right. :-) As it should be. There may be VM kludges in 1.{5,6,7...}, but doing it right, providing full inter-process protection and resource tracking, revamping the graphics.library, etc, are the sort of things I expect in 2.0. (Unless, of course, the FSF gets GNU the OS written first, in which case I'll be running that and won't care. :-}) (Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I haven't heard a whisper of a suggestion of a hint of a rumour about any 2.0 project or lack thereof. I'm just expressing an opinion about the kind of changes that warrant a 1.x -> 2.0 number change.) -- -Colin
a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (04/06/90)
In article <10856@wpi.wpi.edu> jstorey@wpi.wpi.edu (John R Storey) writes:
[several requests, some of which have been quite nicely answered by
Michael Portuesi so I won't bother with them.]
If you're looking for an assembler and a C compiler, though, try
Fish disk #314. It contains A68k, which is a quite capable Amiga
assembler, as well as Sozobon-C, a compiler which is good enough
that I'm currently using it to develop A68k (although I have Jeff
Lydiatt re-compile it using Aztec C to get the size down).
The price is right.
Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP
For every vision there is an equal and opposite revision.foot@cutmcvax.OZ (foo tuilee) (04/08/90)
The best assembler that I have Come across is the HiSoft Devpac assembler. It is many, many times faster than things like a68k or metacomco assembler... :) Another one to look for is ArgAsm by Argonaut software(?). The versions of these programs that I have, the Devpac assembler will assemble to ram, But ArgAsm doesn't(?)
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (04/11/90)
In article <1425@mindlink.UUCP>, a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) says: > >If you're looking for an assembler and a C compiler, though, try >Fish disk #314. It contains A68k, which is a quite capable Amiga >assembler, as well as Sozobon-C, a compiler which is good enough >that I'm currently using it to develop A68k (although I have Jeff >Lydiatt re-compile it using Aztec C to get the size down). > >The price is right. We've tried! We can't find Fish #314 at any FTP site. :-( J. Kurt Tappe Blaise Tarr JKT100 & BGT100 PSUVM