Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ACB.COR@OFFICE-2.ARPA
From: ACB.COR@OFFICE-2.ARPA (Alan Bomberger)
Newsgroups: net.micro.cpm
Subject: MIX editor
Message-ID: <1180@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 08:19:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1180
Posted: Tue Sep  3 08:19:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 07:47:39 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 21

Is the MIX editor written in Turbo?  I have a quarrel with whatever medium 
level language it is written in (at least the CP/M implementation).  It seems 
that the stack is mismanaged so that, should your system run with interrupts 
enabled, MIX won't work (and other software using the same language,I assume). 
Seems most likely that the stack pointer is being manipulated via arithmetic 
and that POPd values are assumed to remain valid.  Other possiblity is that 
small stacks are allocated and interrupts cause these to overflow.  Some other 
explanation?  Whatever, MIX is unusable on my system because of interference 
with interrupts.  I am curious what langauge is involved so that I don't waste 
my money buying it.

Other comments about MIX are that it is reasonably powerful.  I got it to 
behave like Magic Wand (my favorite editor) and its macro capability seems very
nice (especially for the price).  It is, however, VERY slow and VERY large 
(medium level languages again).  Even with tons of overlays only a 16K buffer 
is left on my 59K Northstar system (Magic Wand leave over 40K).

I got it because it handles split screens and was programmable.  I will 
probably use it for those tasks that require those features.  Must be a lot 
better with bigger memories and faster CPU's.  Is writing fast, compact, and 
powerful code a lost art?