Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!apple!agate!e260-2f!laba-1ei
From: laba-1ei@e260-2f.berkeley.edu (Joseph Chung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Difficulty in programming
Message-ID: <1990Jun2.063414.10292@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 90 06:34:14 GMT
References: <2487@zipeecs.umich.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: laba-1ei@e260-2f (Joseph Chung)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31

In article <2487@zipeecs.umich.edu> gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin)
writes:
>Hi.  I've been watching the discussion of how difficult it is to
>program the Amiga versus other systems.  I've seen a lot of nonsense.
>Somebody has been making claims that it is relatively difficult to
>program the Amiga.  It is just as easy, and often far easier to write
>stuff for the Amiga than most other systems around.
> 

Try this one on for size:

In an IBM (no flames please!), if I want to put a character anywhere on the
screen, I just
1. load a segment register with the segment of the screen.
2. write the proper byte to the screen location (using a simple offset) (In
short, is a basic POKE command!)

How would you accomplish this in an Amiga?
Let's see.
1. Create my own screen, or should it be my window (damn, where did I put
    my copy of NewWindow struct ...)

The above is just one very tiny example.  In short, I would like you to show
me how programming a multitasking system can be *easier* than programming a
monotasking one.

-jc
--
Joseph Chung
== You can always find what you're not looking for! ==
laba-1ei@web.berkeley.edu