Re: [cc65] CBM C-Library Features and Usecases

From: Oliver Schmidt <>
Date: 2013-02-23 15:34:31

> i'd simply not use any program not giving me this kind of info. (and
> a progress indicator is not important at all. if it takes longer than about 25
> seconds, i wont use the program either. basicaly anything direct disk access
> using kernal is mostly an academical excercise for the same reason - a program
> ment to be actually used would come with its own turbo-dos anyway =P)

Surely - but I'm afraid we're missing the point totally with this discussion:

Imagine a "Hello World" sample program which needs C library support
to write to the screen. You deny this need with the argument, that it
is an academical exercise to use a C compiler with a C library just to
write "Hello World" to the screen. Got the point?

>> If I understand you correctly then dio_phys_to_log() and dio_log_to_phys()
>> are the very mappers you're asking for.
> but these are provided by the library, not the application, right? meaning the
> application must come with all possible tables (of which most would never be
> used).

You totally lost me here. Maybe you want to elaborate what usecase
you're talking about and what tables you're thinking of.

>> An implementation supporting just the 1541 would already be WAY better than
>> no implementation at all. From the little I understand about CBM drives I
>> believe that supporting the 1541, 1571 and 1581 would both be feasable and
>> cover many usecases so it might be the sweetspot.
> then you have a c64 library.

I'm totally fine with that.

> for cbm you'd atleast have to support 8050,8250
> as well. and maybe also sfd-1000. and dont forget the code to detect the
> drives (which is far from trivial to do reliably)

Okay, than it's C64 only, no problem with me.

> 1541 only would be especially pointless - because for that drive all kinds of
> imagineable tools exist already (and better/faster than you could ever do with
> cc65's kernal stuff). i would actually ignore 1541 completely for these
> considerations and try to find out what makes sense for other drives first -
> since those could actually benefit from newly written programs.

1. In my first post I was talking about the usecase of a WGET and an
FTP program. Do they already exist? Do they have IPv6 support - or
will have soon? Do they work with multiple Ethernet hardware using
loadable drivers?

2. In general there "exist already" "much fast/better" computers than
the C64. Therefore it doesn't "make sense" at all to write new
programs for them. It's just "especially pointless". ;-))

To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Sat Feb 23 15:34:51 2013

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2013-02-23 15:34:55 CET