Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!bucsb!crewman
From: crewman@bucsb.UUCP (JJS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Apple II Port anyone?
Message-ID: <2441@bucsb.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 89 18:50:48 GMT
References: <592@madnix.UUCP> <1989Apr9.032455.7088@utzoo.uucp> <3828@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: crewman@bucsb.bu.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.minix
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 24

In article <3828@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> (Daniel E. Wilson) writes:
>In article <1989Apr9.032455.7088@utzoo.uucp> (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> The real problem is that only a masochist would try to write a C compiler
>> for the 6502.  The 65816 *may* be a bit easier.
>
>  Only a masochist would do anything with a 6502.

I realize this doesn't belong in this newsgroup, but come on now.  I've
seen games on a 1.8MHz 6502 squeeze more color, graphics, animation, and
SPEED out of 16K of code than most programs on my new 12MHz AT can get
out of 200K of code.  With good programming practices, almost anything
can be developed for the 6502, as well as for ANY system.  As a matter of
fact, the problem I've noticed with Unix workstations with 1.3Mbyte 
executables and 98 Trillion bytes of virtual memory, is that they allow
programmers to be ridiculously sloppy.  Every bug fix introduces 5 new
bugs.

But I must admit: attempting to write a multi-tasking, multi-user operating
system on a 3-register 64K machine would not be a good idea.  Minix is
very compact, but I can't imagine it running on anything less than a
PC based on an 80x86, just because of the memory and speed overhead
required for multi-tasking.

	-- JJS