Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!feldman
From: feldman@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.apple
Subject: Re: Apple Pascal: What I think
Message-ID: <3768@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Nov-83 16:38:50 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3768
Posted: Sun Nov 13 16:38:50 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Nov-83 00:08:41 EST
References: <3656@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <2194@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 72

[these are non blank characters]

      In response to rabbit!sdh's (What is his name?) response to my 
      article on Apple Pascal, I have the following to say:
      
      My main use for a micro right now is developing software which is 
      portable.  I have written business software (yuk) to deal with
      very large files on a hard disk in AP.  For DOS to come anywhere 
      close to AP's speed in random file access I would have to of 
      hacked DOS up quite a bit.  Maintaining the program would be 
      lot's o' fun.  AP walks the line between speed and porability.  I
      agree that assembly running under turbo-charged DOS is faster
      than AP, but it really isn't very portable.  I also believe that
      there are other OSs that are more portable than AP such as UCSD
      Pascal IV.1.  Unfortunately IV.1 (or IV.anything for that matter)
      currently runs much slower than AP.  As I stated in my original
      article, I would much rather have a 16 bit or 32 bit micro
      capable of running one of the larger OSs such as Un*x.
      
      The reason that the AP assembler runs so slowly is that it was 
      not written specially for the apple, or the 6502 for that matter.
      Both AP and DOS should be getting faster/better in the future as
      I heard/read that Apple was coming out with new versions of both.
      The new DOS has a new name, but it escapes me at the moment.  If
      you look at the new DOS 3.3 Master that comes with the Apple
      ][/e, you will see that they now have a routine that does load
      the language card quickly (in about 1/4 the normal DOS time).
      
      Hacking is what makes the Apple running under DOS so much fun.  I 
      liked your little assembly routine
      
        300: DEC $00
        302: BNE $309
        304: BIT $C030
        307: DEC $00
        309: DEC $01
        30B: BNE $314
        30D: BIT $C030
        310: LDA #$FE
        312: STA $01
        314: LDA #$02
        316: JSR $FCA8
        319: JMP $300

      though I prefer
      
        314:  LDA #$01
      
      - a matter of taste.  As for assembly language being the only
      language (that isn't for nerds), I do hope you weren't just
      talking about 6502 assembly.  It is, after all, just barely
      passable as a computer's cpu :-).  The only routine that you are
      using from ROM is the wait routine ($FCA8) which can be easily
      written.  For most applications, the NOTE routine supplied by AP
      is good enough for making sounds on the Apple's speaker.
      AP can also be hacked up a bit.  SYSTEM.APPLE (the p-code 
      interpreter) just sits there, waiting to be patched.
      
      You see, I'm not saying DOS is bad or AP is great.  I am just 
      justifying AP's existence.  There are some things it does well, 
      some things it doesn't.  Using it or not depends on your 
      application.  Unfortunately I don't see an operating system that
      runs on the Apple that does everything well, so the choice must
      be made:  DOS, AP, other, a combination.  Arguing over which OS
      is better is ridiculous.  You gotta list the pros, list the cons, 
      and make your decision.

-- mark feldman --  UUCP  : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!feldman
                    CSNet : feldman@umcp-cs  
                    Arpa  : feldman.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay