Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucrmath!rhyde
From: rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Choosing a language (ML vs HLL)
Message-ID: <14106@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 1 May 91 22:45:21 GMT
References: <usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!hrc!gtephx!campbellb@UCSD.EDU> <9105010011.AA10540@apple.com>
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Lines: 43

I would also like to comment on HLLs being an "enabler"...
If HLLs enable people to do so much on the GS, how come we aren't
seeing a plethoria of software for the GS.  There are at least five or
six HLL compilers for the GS I'm aware of.  Sure, a few applications
dribble in (Hypercard, e.g.), but I don't see people porting a lot
of software from the PC or the MAC to the GS.  Most software over there
was written in Pascal or C.  What's the problem?

(That, if you hadn't guessed, is a rhetorical question:-) )

There are two basic problems with porting C and Pascal programs to the GS:
(1) Most C and Pascal programs are not portable!  C portability is a myth.
    Pascal is even worse.  I'll attack C.  I can't speak for MPW C, but I
    know for a fact that ORCA and APW C's standard libraries are anything
    but (of course, "standard library" is an oxymoron).  You think segment-
    ation on a PC is bad, try segmentation on the 816!  Finally, most C and
    Pascal programs written on PCs or Macs were written specifically for
    PCs or Macs.  They are system dependent.  Sure, you can port a lot of
    UNIX utilities to APW, but are they that useful if you don't have
    UNIX?  Being able to type "ls" rather than "cat" doesn't excite me.

(2) Once you manage to port your program from a bigger machine to the GS,
    you'll find that it runs horribly slow.  I've tried a few programs on
    my 80386 and GS.  The ORCA/C version ran about 50-100 times slower than
    the Turbo C version.  That's why you don't see a lot of developers porting
    games to the GS.  Even if they can lick the compatibilty problems, you've
    still got a problem with speed.

Don't get me wrong.  There are many decent applications you can write in
C on the GS.  Heck, people have been writing reasonable applications in
Applesoft for over a dozen years.

One thing really bothers me about this group though,
people constant complain about the fact that the Apple IIGS can do wonderful
things if you really push it.  
Then people start attacking the use of assembly language.
The only way you can get an Apple IIGS to perform like a Mac is to write
in assembly while mac authors write in Pascal or C.  If you write in C on
the GS, the 68000 C code will blow yours away.
(of course, it may be the people who are constantly putting down the GS'
capabilities [not me, I only claim someone would be nuts to buy one today
given it's price/performance] that claim you shouldn't ever use asm.)
*** Randy Hyde