ross@apollo.HP.COM (Mike Ross) (03/28/90)
Two questions for all you apple2ers:
1) Lots of debate has been seen in
this space about using compilers vs. assembly
language. For those of you who like assembly,
skip to next question. For those of you who are high
level language fans, I've heard complaints
that there are no good C compilers out there
for Apple II or Apple II GS systems.
Question: How many people are interested
in a reasonable ANSI C compiler for Apple II
systems? What would you pay for it?
2) Unrelated question. If you've used
one of the Carmen SanDiego programs,
or something similar, there are some
really great pictures produced there,
even with some simple but nifty animation.
How does one do this? I suspect that it has
to be done in assembler rather than Applesoft,
and makes use of storing the image in the
shape table, but I'm a compiler person, not a graphics whiz,
so maybe someone with more detailed knowledge
can enlighten me. I have an Apple II C with
a color composite monitor.
Thanks!
Mike Rossgwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (03/28/90)
In article <49732c8f.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> ross@apollo.HP.COM (Mike Ross) writes: >... I've heard complaints >that there are no good C compilers out there >for Apple II or Apple II GS systems. >Question: How many people are interested >in a reasonable ANSI C compiler for Apple II >systems? What would you pay for it? I'd pay for it about what I did pay for it: $150. Even $300 is not excessive for a first-rate software development environment, which needs to include MUCH more than just a compiler (even if you take "ANSI C compiler" to actually mean "standard conforming implementation for a hosted environment", which includes the standard library). Debugging, editing, and access to the IIGS ToolBox are also essential. By the way, I don't think it's worth worrying about the 8-bit Apples, apart from possibly selling software to folks who still use them. I had both available for several months and found I never had any reason to want to use my old Apple //e instead of the IIGS. (Well, actually there were a couple of copy-protected games that didn't work with the IIGS, but that's not pertinent.) ORCA/C will be just about ideal when the bugs that plagued Release 1.0 are fixed. Then it would certainly qualify as a "reasonable ANSI C compiler" for the IIGS.
rhood@pro-gsplus.cts.com (Robert Hood) (03/30/90)
In-Reply-To: message from ross@apollo.HP.COM 1. I'd like to see an ANSI C compiler for the Apple 8-bits! I'm tired of hearing how great C is and not being able to use it! 2. One way of doing animation on an Apple is by using shape tables and DRAW/XDRAW to erase a shape from one place and redraw it elsewhere. This normally results in a lot of flickering - not to mention crude shapes. Another way is to use bitmapped shapes. These are shapes formatted in such a form that they can be stored directly on the Apple screen (as opposed to vector shapes, where the shapes are drawn by following the vectors). Finally, there's a method that grew out of bitmapped shapes: overlays. These overlays differ from bitmapped shapes only in that they aren't "shapes" as much as they are picture fragments. A way to see the difference is to imagine a stick figure raising its arm. With typical shapes, you could have a shape of the whole figure defined in all the intermediate phases. You erase the old shape and draw the next in the sequence until you get to the end. Very bad flicker. The next best way would be to define just the moving part as a shape and operate as before. Better, but still leaves a lot to be desired. Thirdly, you could take an area of the screen and see what it would look like in each intermediate phase. You "capture" that area into a "shape" and just put it on top of the old image. That's even better. Of course, it's slow if the area is large. Hence, you want to diminish the area of the animation as far as possible. Maybe that helps, I don't know much more. Robert Hood - programmer ProLine address: pro-gsplus!rhood
rhood@pro-gsplus.cts.com (Robert Hood) (03/30/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL Doug Gwyn writes (concerning a C compiler for the Apple II): By the way, I don't think it's worth worrying about the 8-bit Apples, apart from possibly selling software to folks who still use them. I had both available for several months and found I never had any reason to want to use my old Apple //e instead of the IIGS. (Well, actually there were a couple of copy-protected games that didn't work with the IIGS, but that's not pertinent.) ORCA/C will be just about ideal when the bugs that plagued Release 1.0 are fixed. Then it would certainly qualify as a "reasonable ANSI C compiler" for the IIGS. <end of quote> The IIgs already has C compilers. I know that, you know that, I think almost everyone who's even thought about programming on the IIgs knows that. The question was whether or not there should be an ANSI C for the _Apple II_. I interpret "Apple II" to mean the 8-bits and "IIgs" to mean the GS. The two are separate entities. There is no question as to whether or not there should be C compilers for the GS; there already _are_. Call me weird, call me old-fashioned, call me strange, but somehow I dislike the idea of shifting all development emphasis to the GS while there are millions of 8-bits out there with users that want new programs. These people aren't all going to upgrade - especially with the rather lengthy boot process for GS/OS when I can get running under ProDOS 8 in a lot less time, as a MINOR point. Take into account economics and the stereotypical "//e workhorse" and you'll see that there are going to be _a lot_ of 8-bits out there for a long time to come. As such, there'd better be some new programs for 'em! Personally, I'm sick of "GS this" and "GS that". Now, don't get me wrong; I liked the GS as much as anyone when it came out. However, with Apple's sorry attitude toward updates for the GS, regardless of consumer input, I've started to dislike what the GS stands for. I admit that it has more programming power than a //e. I READILY admit that. However, that's no reason to give up on millions of people. I remember the time when I wanted to get a GS as soon as possible. Then I got my Laser 128EX and realized what Apple was doing to the Apple II line - including the GS. Something's wrong when a third party can come up with a 98% (or more) compatible computer - with more hardware! - for LESS money. Further, something is VERY wrong when Apple doesn't get the hint and kick-start the Apple II line. I've gone on about that long enough. Basically, I see no reason to abandon the 8-bits, and I think a version of C for the Apple IIe/IIc/IIc+ is long overdue - as is a version of Pascal that will make ProDOS 8 executable files. Robert Hood - programmer ProLine address: pro-gsplus!rhood