Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!math.waterloo.EDU!jimomura%lsuc%math From: jimomura%lsuc%math@math.waterloo.EDU Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k.pc Subject: (none) Message-ID: <8705280541.AA07223@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Thu, 28-May-87 00:06:50 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8705280541.AA07223 Posted: Thu May 28 00:06:50 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 30-May-87 07:08:09 EDT Sender: mwm@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 121 Approved: info-68k@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: Path: lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k.pc Subject: Re: (none) Summary: Defining "good" Message-ID: <1826@lsuc.UUCP> Date: 28 May 87 00:41:34 GMT References: Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Distribution: world Organization: Consultant, Toronto Lines: 106 In article PEPRBV@CFAAMP.BITNET (Bob Babcock) writes: >jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes (about OS-9): >> There is a good selection of development >>tools, as well as application software. > >I find this hard to believe. It took 2.5 years to get a Fortran >compiler for our OS-9/68K system. As far as I know, Microware is >the only supplier of compilers, so if they don't have it, you are Even as I wrote the original comment I knew we'd have to get more specific about it, but I was tired. Anyway, what's "good" selection? Notice I didn't say "staggeringly abundant" or "beyond your wildest dreams" or anything nonsensical like that, but I stand by my statement of "good". What I mean by "good" is that there is a sufficient selection of working tools for what most programmers find themselves up against. I also weighted the fact that most of the Usenet population (and those on other Nets where these messages might end up) tend to be C oriented. OK. Bottom line for most of "us": The Microware C compiler is "good". I'm not a super C hacker, but I've used it enough to confirm that it works and covers the majority of C programmers requirements which is evident when you start porting stuff. I've done a couple of ports and looked over a quite a few. It's not perfect and I have my own gripes, but we are shooting at a moving target and things are constantly improving with it. The current version is 2.1 and the code is, depending on the compiler options, fairly fast as is evident by benchmarks on my '020 machine, or extremely compact, due to the efficiency of the system, or some compromise of the two. For more detail, the original inquirer can get a copy of the manual (which I'm assuming you have ... ). As for other languages, Omega's Pascal has been out for at least a year as far as I know and is supposed to be quite good (I've never used it), Microware has a Pascal and also a BASIC, which is currently being redone a bit. There is at least one other Fortran coming out fairly shortly (if it isn't available right now) which should be better than the Microware Fortran if what I hear is correct. I won't argue that this is "enough" because everyone has their own standard for "enough". Heck, the more the better. As for me, I don't see myself using more than one or two languages in the future, so you know where I stand on "enough". >stuck. Also, most of the little utilities which are available >for MS-DOS don't seem exist for OS-9. I would be much happier if Utilities are strange to compare. If you don't have one good debugger, you make do with 6. This truth is hard to believe until you move from a powerful tool to a less powerful tool, or a powerful system to a less powerful system. I can't compare systems. Let's look at a typical problem: You've been doing a series of compiles and have a bunch of versions of the same program (object code) in a directory. Under some systems, you'd need a 'cmp' comparison utility and maybe a checksum utility to figure out which were in good shape, and hopefully you set your date right every time you booted. Well, OS-9 has a comparison utility and the CRC is embedded in the file. The date is also there (again subject to your diligence :-). It's got that kind of stuff pretty much out of the box. It is possible to treat a device as a file pretty much with '@' addressing mode. There's work being done on a screen oriented debugger instead of the current line oriented debugger. There is a good array of file arranging and manipulating stuff (mass copy, grep, directory tree reports, etc.). Furthermore, we can tap most of the C sources written for Unix due to the similarity of user interface. History: The standard shell doesn't have history. I dunno. Again I'm not running around screaming for history. Then again, I'm a special case. I use an Atari 1040ST for a terminal. To me, the 'history' that most people think is so wonderful is a pathetic joke. My "history" is about 800K with screen editing courtesy of the Flash! telecom program. If you want to write a new shell with the usual 10 - 20 lines of history go ahead. As for me, I tend to keep a 1/2 day's work available for review at any given time. Someday, I expect more people to work with systems closer to mine. The price of the Atari 1040ST and Amiga 500 are around what VT-100's costed at one time. You just gotta try it man! Beyond that, well, it boils down to "you show me the problem and we'll see if I got a solution". No real way to compare. >I could have equivalents for just the Norton Utilities and CED (a >command line editing/history utility). Lastly, I also considered "applications" level tools. We have two database/application systems which I hear are pretty good. CSG IMS and Sculptor. I'll be buying Sculptor shortly, but I have contact with people who have been using it and feel confident that it'll cover the needs of most people doing business databases. Again, there are two problems with this discussion. First, "good" is whatever you want to say is "good". In quantity and quality, I think say, 80% of us will find pretty much everything we need either supplied with version 2.0 OS-9 68K (Professional) or reasonably easily obtained, subject to the fact that most people on the Net are programmers in the first place and so we should be able to do a bit of the work to put together *some* of the tools *some* of the time. Secondly, we're talking about another "moving target". Did you know that the current Shell has a PATH variable? If the last version of OS-9 68K you saw was 1.2 then you might not know that. Nor would you know about some other changes such as .login and .logout files, 'group' level permission support and a number of other changes. Say in about 6 months, for all I know, we could have 'history'. It wouldn't take much to add it. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura