Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!well!ewhac
From: ewhac@well.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Software Development (was Re: AllocMem() with 16-bit Manx)
Message-ID: <3941@well.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Sep-87 16:34:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.3941
Posted: Sun Sep 13 16:34:55 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 01:36:29 EDT
References: <872@percival.UUCP> <3878@well.UUCP> <1263@dasys1.UUCP>
Reply-To: ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab)
Distribution: na
Organization: UmeCorp.  Pay us some money and we'll invent something for you.
Lines: 64

In article <1263@dasys1.UUCP> cheeser@dasys1.UUCP (Les Kay) writes:
>
>If YOU had to write a massive game program for the Amiga and later port
>it to the Atari ST and Apple //gs (forget about the gs, that'll be in assembly)
>what would you pick as a 'c' development system?

	I wouldn't.

>And why?
>
	Depending on the kind of game you're writing, C may not be fast
enough for you, even with a ~8MHz 68K to back you up.  You'll probably have
to go directly to assembly if you want any kind of respectable speed.

	Also, machine architectures are fundamentally different.  Whereas on
the Amiga you have the call BltBitMap(), on the Atari you have the call
vfocpyfm() (or some such), both of which take entirely different parameters.
A significant fraction of your program's critical path will change
dramatically when moving from one machine to another, so you won't really
gain much portability by writing it in C.

	To be fair, if I were writing it, I'd first model all the algorithms
in C to make sure I had a working model, then I'd go through the critical
path and turn it into handcrafted assembly.

	Oh, yes.  I'd select the Manx package.  No reason; just personal
bias.

	Note: The foregoing applies *only* to writing games.

	A point:  Given the (deleted) first paragraph in your posting, I
assume that you have never programmed the Amiga in-depth before.  If this is
indeed the case, I would highly recommend one of two things:
	1. Be prepared to set aside *AT LEAST* two months for general
	   hacking time to familiarize yourself with the machine and the
	   full ramifications of the system software.  If you think this is
	   an unreasonable learning curve, then,
	2. Don't do the project.

	There's *MUCH* more to the Amiga than you may initially think, and
it'll take a long time before you get a handle on The Big Picture.  A lot of
the good PD programs for the Amiga are the result of many people ascending
that learning curvr through long and persistent hacking.  It's not a machine
you can just walk up to and expect to do a respectable job on the first time.

	Of course, if you *have* programmed the Amiga in-depth before, you
can ignore the previous two paragraphs, since you probably know it already.

>Probably reply in mail, unless others here are interested....but as this is
>sort of a religous question, we could end up with all sorts of flaming....
>
	Gosh, I hope I haven't started anything....

_-_-_ Old .signature included to make Andy Finkel and his drill happy. _-_-_
 ________		 ___			Leo L. Schwab
	   \		/___--__		The Guy in The Cape
  ___  ___ /\		    ---##\		ihnp4!ptsfa!well!ewhac
      /   X  \_____    |  __ _---))			..or..
     /   /_\--    -----+==____\ // \  _		well ---\
___ (   o---+------------------O/   \/ \	dual ----> !unicom!ewhac
     \     /		    ___ \_  (`o )	hplabs -/       ("AE-wack")
 ____ \___/			     \_/
	      Recumbent Bikes:			"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR
	    The _O_n_l_y Way To Fly!		anybody!  I'm just having fun."