From: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu (Robert Fentiman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications,comp.sys.amiga.introduction,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Programming
Date: 15 Nov 1992 14:53:10 -0600
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
NNTP-Posting-Host: ub.d.umn.edu

In article <OAHVENLA.92Nov15135840@lk-hp-4.hut.fi> oahvenla@snakemail.hut.fi (Osma Ahvenlampi) writes:

>I haven't even seen AmigaVision, so I can't speak for it, but I have done some
>pretty extensive work with HyperCard (a Mac program). It is a multimedia
>program, one of the first. It is also a database, and in fact is to some extent
>marketed as a database. I have done a 1500 card application using sounds,
>text, animation and so on with it, and it wasn't very difficult. In fact, it is
>VERY easy. It has a HIGH object orientation, which makes it very simple to add
>new elements to your programs. True, I haven't seen a spreadsheet made with
>it, but that's because there are already some very powerful spreadsheets out
>there. Show me an AMOS spreadsheet.. I have seen HyperCard based games that
>beat AMOS games easily.

Is HyperCard available for the Amiga at all?  Is it the same as th eMac
version?  If not, your argument is pointless.

>>look at the AMOS manual.  Also consider getting the AMOS demos (like the
>>demo of AmosPro, available at many FTP sites).  AMOS has over 500
>>commands (in addition to those from the 3D support module), and AMOS Pro
>>has over 700.
>
>Oh, well that tells something about you. If you think lots of commands make
>a language powerful, boy, are you lost... You said that C is a good language.
>Well, C has 32 commands. That twice too many, I'd say.

I can tell I'm not he one who needs a compas.  Show me code in C where
routines are not made up of more basic routines.  The more basic
functions you have, the less work you have to do. QED.

>Seems like you didn't get it. LoadIFF is probably bug free, but there are
>commands in AMOS that are not. Suppose LoadIFF had a bug, like thrashing the
>picture, if it was size 319x76. Now, you command syntax is correct, where the
>hell is the bug?

I understood PERFECTLY what Mike was saying, that the people who wrote
the AMOS interpreter missed all the bugs when they released their
product.  If you would read other sections of my post more clearly, you
would notice I covered this topic. 

>On your assembly (I think that was what you meant) program the bug would be

You're right, I don't know Assembly at all.  I was giving an example of
the readability of AMOS for debugging purposes vs assembly.

>spotted automatically by the compiler. There is no instruction "Move A.x".

Pre run time errors are spotted by the AMOS editor as well.  I'm talking
about run time errors.   I know what I am talking about.

>BTW: It is obvious you don't even know what you're exactly loading. IFF picture
>is NOT loaded with 11 assembly instructions, or even 20. It can be read from
>disk in that, if you count dos.library calls as one instruction, but after
>that it has to be converted into a bitmap. You can not just show IFF format.
>IFF is interleaved, possible packed, and has a lot more information than just
>the bitmap.

It is not so abvious.  I understand 100% what an IFF picture is.  The
code I was trying to represent was the code for an IFF loading routine
(since I don't know assembly, you must give me the benefit of the
doubt).  I was attemplint to show how simple it is in AMOS vs. writing your own
routine in another language.

>If you want to do it easily, there is the iff.library. If you want do to it
>more efficiently, retaining simplicity, update iff.lib. In AMOS, you'd have
>to re-compile your program, provided there even is a updated, more efficient
>version available.

You forget, most of the time, AMOS programs are not compiled (so other
users can learn from them).  They are interpreted (it IS BASIC after
all), that can be compiled if you want your program protected or to run
faster.  AMOS has access to ALL libraries as well.

>You, on the other hand, seem to have VERY little experience, period. Your
>concepts of programming are exactly the things I want to avoid by not using
>AMOS programs.

You have NEVER seen anything I have programmed.  You have no right to
judge me as a programmer because of the languages I like to use. 
Granted, I'm no programming wiz (that's why I'm taking CS classes,
having CS as one of my majors).  You have come to the wrong coclusion
saying that I have VERY little programming experience.  My concepts of
programming include modularity, usability, serving the purpose for which
it written.  ANY language can be used to accomplish these tasks.  I like
AMOS because it allows me to do complex things easily without
sacrificing versitality.  I don't need to worry about clipping when I do
a game, for example).  I write programs to do what they are supposed  
to do.   If you think these bad habits, argue with my CS teachers and go
(re)take some classes yourself.  

>>>> C is a good language,
>>>
>>>Giggle. Oh well - I guess that's to be expected if you think that
>>>typical AMOS behavior is acceptable.
>
>>I suppose that comment is to be expected for a person who is closed
>>minded that ALL languages have advantages over others.  So exactly what
>>DO you think is a good language?
>
>All languages have advantage over other, just as you quoted. What do you want
>to do? If you just want a general, all-purpose language, I'd choose C, not
>because it's powerful, but because it's pretty easy, well supported, and is 
>found on several platforms.
>
>>animation capability with the same ease.  To play a MOD file in amos,
>>you type Music "<music name>".  Can they have more sprites on the screen
>
>And if you want to play a MED file?

Check out Amos Pro.  It does it.

>>than is normally allowed by the system (no, I will NEVER deny AMOS's
>>excellence when it comes to making games)?  How about Copper support?  
>
>graphics.library is the only legal way of directly accessing Copper.

Talk to Mandarin about this one.  Sooo, Euro demos are illegaly making
good programs.  Hmmm.  Better talk to people on XXX.amiga.demos about
this one.

>>Multiple screens of different sizes and resolutions, and manipulating
>>the screens (and I don't mean windows)?  Do they have wide support
>
>I seem to remember something about intuition.library...

Can they do it with single commands?  Amos can do it without the hassle
of opening the intuition.library.  Besides, this comment was in response
to Mike saying Amos was restricted to its screen (singular).

>>(hundreds of PD programs for AMOS that can be used as tutorials; AMOS
>
>No, I can't use the AMOS programs as tutorials in C or assembly, but (this
>is a raw guess) 40% of PD programs found on Fish disks have source included,
>usually in either language.

You missed the point.  I was showing how AMOS is well supported for
someone to learn programming.  Amos has its OWN PD collection as well.

>>newsletters; quick return of information and bug fixes from the deveoper
>>- refer to Amazing Computing June '92 review of AMOS)?  Are they limited
>>to a compiler or an interpreted environment?  Do they support CDTV?  I
>>can assure you, AMOS does ALL of these things (and more).
>
>>Are there any professional programs written in these languages (for
>>amos, the award winning Fun School (?), from the Fun, 2, 3 series of
>>educational software (another non-game use of amos))?
>
>>Again, none of these questions are intended to be rhetorical, as I don't
>>know of any of the references you refer to.  And, as you like to point
>>out, your aguments are useless unless ONE language incorperates * ALL *
>>these features.
>
>Your every point for AMOS works for C, the most popular programming language
>in Amiga envinronment. You have yourself stated that AMOS programmers probably
>switch to C at some point. If AMOS was powerful enough, they wouldn't. C is
>not difficult. AMOS may seem easy, but making good code with it is much more
>difficult than it would be with C. In addition, with C you can do 100% system
>compliant code (remember where this thread started from? You seem to have
>managed to turn it into a battle about whether AMOS is easy or not).

Oh, and comments like "Amos is a *ROTTEN* introduction language are
staying on that topic?  The discussion started when someone said
basically that AMOS Sucks.  There is NO single topic on this thread.

>Osma Ahvenlampi  -  oahvenla@snakemail.hut.fi   * Workstation power for micro-
>All my opinions are not necessarily really mine * computer price: Amiga := FUN

BTW, I meant to say it would be best to move this thread to:

comp.sys.amiga.programmer
                       ^^
Because it deals with the topic better ( a suggestion hinted at by the
party I referred to in my last post).

	Thanks
	Robert Fentiman

UseNet: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu
At: University of Minnesota, Duluth

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications