From: boberg@lysator.liu.se (Stefan Boberg)
Subject: Re: Multitasking and games (Was: Re: Struggling student needs ...)
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:38:08 GMT

gothic@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Toby Sargeant) writes:

>: This entire debate depends on whether you have some formal software skills or
>: you are some midnight hacker who doesn't know better.
>: 
>: --
>: copes@cs.curtin.edu.au
>: 
>	No it doesn't. Anyone can program OS, it's all done for you. It
>makes all code simple to write, but it makes it all SLOW. If C= had got
>someone decent to write the roms, it may have been worthwhile using
>them. 

  You're absolutely clueless. There's nothing difficult about kicking
the OS and hitting the hardware - programming a well-behaved OS friendly
program is more difficult with all error-checking etc. that has to be
done in order to make the program reliable. The OS Crew are very capable 
programmers and if you think you're so much better why don't you send them 
an offer to hire you?

>next time you're using a monitor or an assembler worth
>its salt, take a look at some of the code. If you cant pick at least 5
>optimisations that could be made (space or timewise) in the first 200
>bytes, then dont EVER try and write a game.

  Fact : Well-coded assembly is always faster than C (that's a fact)

  Clue 1: Assembly programs take more time to develop than their C
          equivalents.

  Clue 2: Time is money

  Clue 3: Commodore is a multinational company and as such has only one
          primary aim: to make as much money as possible.

  Conclusion: It's not worthwhile to write an entire program (or OS for 
that matter) in assembly, since the additional effort and time required
to do so don't justify the marginal performance increase. You're much
better off downcoding carefully selected parts of your code into
assembly.

>	For example, why in gods name is there no syncing on the drive
>reads? I mean, when the trackdisk.device reads in a track, It reads off
>almost 2 times what it needs, and then MANUALLY searches for the $4489
>sync. 

  Huh!? Do your homework before you make ignorant statements such as this.
The OS does NOT read twice as much as is required and it does use syncs.
You are confusing normal DOS reads with RAW trackdisk reads. The trackdisk
device is one hell of a clever piece of programming (at least in KS2.x and
up).

>Well, how about the memory needed to set up the structures you would need 
>in order to create a halfway useful screen? 
  
  Oh, about 32 bytes = sizeof(struct NewScreen). Is that a lot?

>Think about plasma. 50K worth of copperlists... 

  But I thought you wanted a USEFUL screen (you said so earlier). I don't
need no stinking plasma coppers on my WB or editor screen for sure.

>	To conclude, don't call anyone who programs a fly-by-night
>hacker who doesn't know better. They probably know more than you think,
>and have chosen to sacrifice compatibility with high end machines (that
>only a select few have) in order to do the things they do in style...

  Yeah, sure. From personal experience (I've been into the demo scene) most
demo programmers don't know zit about anything but their own machines. They
don't "choose" to sacrifice compatibility with high-end machines - they don't
KNOW how to make compatible programs in the first place! And since this is 
very easy - just read the first few pages of any Amiga programming manual 
and think for a while - I don't quite see how they can be so knowing or 
clever.

>	Gothic/Cr/\sS
-- 
Stefan Boberg - AP & EE student at Linkoping Institute of Technology, Sweden
 Author of LhA, ArjA and LhArcA. Co-author of Alien Breed, Project X ...
  EMail: boberg@lysator.liu.se, lha@augs.se           FIDO: 2:204/404.7
    UUCP:  {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmswe!team17!boberg
Newsgroups: aus.computers.amiga