Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!amiga0!mykes From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: 8-bit death Message-ID: Date: 28 May 91 07:50:34 GMT References: <1991May25.121511.24184@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May27.130057.27121@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Amiga makes it possible Lines: 57 In article <1991May27.130057.27121@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >> Aren't you the same Peter da Silva who posted an article to >> comp.sys.amiga.programmer griping about how difficult it is to port >> between Manx and Lattice/SAS? :) > >No, I'm the same Peter da Silva griping about people writing non-portable >programs, so I have to do their work for them. In fact in the very message >you're responding to (though you have "cleverly" refrained from quoting it) >I point out that it's not the least bit difficult to write non-portable code >in any language. The opposite... that it's even possible to write portable >code in some languages... is not true. > Sorry, but I use Matt Dillon's DNews, which doesn't allow me to quote from one article while responding to another. Please trust that I had no intention of being clever :) Your article in csa.programmer shows clearly the problems of porting between two compilers - especially if it's not your code and if it wasn't crafted for portability. >Ignoring people's points is not only rude, it's stupid. > I have to work with other people's 'C' code far too often, as well. Unfortunately, everyone in the world isn't as "brilliant" as you or I when it comes to trying to write portable code. All the problems that you gripe about with the 'C' compilers being incompatible with eachother and the ANSII standard as well as how the language doesn't do a thing to promote portable programming practices (consider the use of the FAR, NEAR, HUGE, etc. keywords for PC compilers...). I think you are totally wrong to think that I ignored any of your points because you are feeding my "case" quite well. Do you think it's easy to port between 32-bit int compilers and 16-bit int compilers? I *know* that you're not supposed to use "int" declarations, but the stack frames are different as well. If you reply, please consider not only the "beautifully" crafted portable code that you currently write, but the code of someone else who you need to port. >> Anyhow, even in your DisplayImage routine, you will call BlitBitMap() or >> whatever, and it will still need to be rewritten. > >Yes. One O/S interface routine gets rewritten. The rest of the code just gets >recompiled. It's a whole lot easier than rewriting all the code that uses >BitBltBitMapLeftCornerPocketCueBall(). Your practice of writing "DisplayImage" the way you do is good for portability, but hurts your programs' performance, speed wise. I personally don't criticize you for choosing "portabilty" over speed, nor would I criticize someone for choosing speed over portability. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************