Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!sdsu!crash!pro-gsplus.cts.com!rhood From: rhood@pro-gsplus.cts.com (Robert Hood) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: C compiler, question on Apple II graphics Message-ID: <2010@crash.cts.com> Date: 29 Mar 90 16:17:37 GMT Sender: root@crash.cts.com Lines: 52 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. 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