Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: IIe vs. IIgs; C-compilers
Message-ID: <12795@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 7 May 90 17:23:18 GMT
References: <1312@ra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
Lines: 45

In article <1312@ra.cs.Virginia.EDU> des7f@ra.cs.Virginia.EDU (David Sappington) writes:
>1) Are most IIgs's used like IIe's?  Does most software being run
>on the IIgs also run on the IIe or do most people with gs's run Mac
>like applications that use the ToolBox?  Basically, should we write
>for the ToolBox or code for the least common denominator (IIe)?

IIGSes are normally used in the 16-bit GS/OS Desktop environment,
switching to 8-bit ProDOS-8 //e-compatible mode only for applications
developed specifically for the 8-bit environment.  If there is no
particular advantage to your application in using the desktop/mouse-
oriented bitmap graphics environment, then developing for the 8-bit
world will enlarge your target audience.  Commercial software for the
IIGS market, however, better be designed for use under GS/OS, using
hard disk even, if it's going to appeal to the dedicated IIGS user.

>2) What C-compilers are available for the IIgs and IIe?

IIGS:	APW C (available only from APDA, now run by Apple)
	ORCA/C (available from ByteWorks, in some software stores)

8-bit:	Aztec C (from Manx Software Systems)
	Hyper C, not recommended

Actually, I don't recommend developing C applications for the 8-bit
Apple line unless your development system has a hard disk and a CPU
accelerator.

>I'm interested in learning about other C-compilers with good screen
>handling characteristics ...

C compiler's don't handle the screen, run-time libraries do.  Aztec C
includes some basic character display support functions, along the
lines of UNIX "curses" but not as complete, while both APW and ORCA
support the IIGS toolbox, which includes simple text tools as well as
more elaborate bitmap windowing-oriented tools.

>The original program made lots of direct writes to the PC's video
>RAM to achieve satisfactory character animation performance.  I'm
>not looking forward to stuffing characters into the II's incredibly
>contorted 80-column memory map but it may come to that.

It isn't hard to address the Apple II text screen locations directly.
However, what in the world is "character animation"?  Wouldn't it be
nicer to leave the world of ASCII CRT oriented applications and enter
thr desktop bitmap graphics world?