Re: [cc65] Latest Snapshot - Apple II

From: Bill Buckels <bbuckels1mymts.net>
Date: 2014-05-20 02:23:15
"Groepaz" wrote:
>>but your comment on seek was hilarious.
>yet you choose not to tell why and what exactly - my guess is because you 
>didnt quite understand what was said, proven by your citation of a 
>completely (for cc65, or its library) useless snippet of code.

My understanding should not be in question. That is also hilarious. I could 
see my use of your compiler being in question and that is an entirely 
different matter and not so hilarious. Prior to that your story of rewriting 
a program to avoid a missing function was a hilarious justification for a 
workaround! It worked in my case too for a rewind so of course it was 
hilarious! I think that was your point.

>i tried it for a minute, and then rewrote the program so it doesnt need 
>seek

Your opinion of what is useless and what is not is simply your opinion, 
which proves nothing to me without me first attempting to port the obvious 
method used from the snippet to test whether it works or not. I am prepared 
to make the effort, not just yet. The fact that it has already been done is 
encouraging. The fact that the source code exists for review of how it was 
done is encouraging. Perhaps only to me, I'll give you that! Clearly, 
posting code that you do not consider useful is is not useful to you.

I understand your preference to keep the runtime small which serves many 
purposes, which is why I have long concluded that it would be pointless to 
attempt to improve the core libraries of this compiler for the same reason. 
For all I know there are hundreds that have tried and failed, maybe 
millions. My guess would be much more conservative.

The only other way is to provide an alternative library which is feature 
rich but which integrates with the existing codebase in some other 
omniverses.

I also can't see much life left in Aztec C65. But I am not prepared to 
condemn its library routines as being irrelevent or its features that are 
missing from cc65 as being useless. On the contrary, I made quite a 
conscious decision to put a solitary effort into porting what I personally 
know is useful to a compiler that is much better but that has gaps in its 
support for my style of programming that concerns itself with a 
retro-perspective that is inclusive of this retro-style rather than 
restrictive.

>and no, cc65 is far from optimal. nor is its library. yet please refrain 
>from posting more code that doesnt help to improve either its library or 
>the compiler in any way. thank you.

Again, I have said that cc65 *IS* optimal (by comparison to Aztec C65).

Exactly what I said was:

>(just) Anyone can't (write seek) on the Commodore so (some) focus instead 
>on (pretending to optimize) optimizing an already optimal compiler.

So it seems to me that my understanding is not really in question here. Rest 
easy.

Just a different opinion and a different type of use, for those who may be 
different than you.

Bill 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Tue May 20 02:23:37 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2014-05-20 02:23:39 CEST