Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Difficulty in programming
Message-ID: <12338@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 6 Jun 90 00:07:31 GMT
References: <2487@zipeecs.umich.edu> <1990Jun2.063414.10292@agate.berkeley.edu> <20990@estelle.udel.EDU> <1990Jun4.191035.12599@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Jun5.084107.162@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 46

In article <1990Jun5.084107.162@agate.berkeley.edu> laba-1ei@e260-3c (Joseph Chung) writes:

>Now, maybe all your emminences out there can help a little guy out.  I've
>toyed with the Pets, 64's, AppleII's, IBM's, and Amigas, and in all cases I
>found it easier to get things done on everything else but the Amiga.

I think "toy-ed" is the operative word.  Pets, 64's, AppleII's, and IBMs (at
least under MS-DOS) are very fundamentally the same, to the programmer.  You
own most everything, and do whatever you feel like with it.  This also has
a severe tendency toward making the machine you're programming a toy, or
something similar.  On the C64, for instance, even straightforward programs
poke to the screen, jump to illegal places in ROM, etc.  So the ROM is
essentially a part of the C64 hardware design now, and you'll never get an
improved C64 that's C64 compatible.  Even the C128 resorts to a new mode and
completely different ROM to use new features.  The MS-DOS machines were a
little better, but not much -- MS-DOS applications are very hardware specific,
and most of the new OSs for PClone machines like DesqView or MS-Windows use
quite a bit of magic to get the average MS-DOS program to run.  The '386
chip helps here, but doesn't change a kludge from being a kludge.

>When I first bought the Amiga, I faced one of my steepest learning curves.
>But hey, maybe I just find this type of programming harder.  I didn't know
>all of you had such an easier time learning to program it (compared to a few
>of the aforementioned systems).

Like I said, the aforementioned systems are all very similar.  If you've
spent years programming minicomputers, systems like those you mentioned would
seem much more difficult to you than the Amiga.  It all depends on your point
of view.  I learned BASIC on a Cyber 72, then a PET, then I spend several
years programming on a Sorcerer, then moved to a DEC-20, then UNIX on a 
PDP-11, then an Intel 8080 development machine, then VMS on a VAX.  After all 
of that, I found things like the C64 and C128 far too weak for any serious 
programming.  The Amiga was the first PC I really felt comfortable with.

>So what's wrong here ?? :)

Your prespective.  Program nothing but an Amiga for a year or two and then
try going back.

>Joseph Chung


-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
	"I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit" -REM