On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 07:38:54AM -0500, Bob Colbert wrote:
> I agree, Most of these programs are written in fairly portable code, and
> they offer all of the necessary functionality already. For example, if you
> want to
> do cycle counting, the best way to do so is to compile using DASM, then
> disassemble using Distella with the cycle-counting flag on. I don't know
> if I added the page-boundry cycle to Distella, but it would be an easy
> addition and would be all anyone needs. Let's face it, programming for the
> 2600 is not for the novice, so I can't see anyone having any trouble using
> the tools that are currently available. Just my 2 cents...
I feel that while the current tools do the job, some seem to be poorly
implemented, and could do with feature enhancement. Just because 2600
programming isn't for the novice doesn't mean that features such as
source compatability wouldn't be a time saving aid.
I'm sure none of us would have any trouble writing our programs in
hex, either, but we use better tools, such as assemblers, for many
good reasons. And assemblers have labels, and so on. Of course, I'm
just being pedantic about that, and I do see your point. ;-)
However, consider what one would have to gain from a set of tools that
sported all those small extra features you might have wished for while
coding away one day. Of course, if you've never wanted for any
features, then I suppose I've made a terrible misjudgement of the
state of the growing retrocomputing movement.
--
Teknovore - tek@xxxxxxx
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/stella.html
