--- "B. Watson" <atari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> However... I think what you really are asking for is
> brand-new code
I've learned to deal with it but I think it does raise
the barrier to entry for new coders.
I think the assembler should be the last source of
frustration while programming the 2600. It's tough
enough as it is.
I remember the first time I tried writing a 2600 game
DASM was bombing out because I didn't put the
processor line just right. That would be enough to
discourage anybody.
I think the error messages should be much more
descriptive also.
> The correct thing to do would be to spec out our
> "dream assembler" and
> start a sourceforge project or such. I guess rule #1
> of the new specs
> is going to be "must be able to assemble all
> existing DASM 6502 code",
> which is going to complicate the design... but then
> we won't have to
> support the other CPUs that DASM supports, if we
> don't want to...
It would be nice if it also assembled the source
that's on the Stella CD. I'm not going to press any
more of these but it would be nice if people who pick
up a CD could assemble the samples. The assembler
tools that are on it now are antiquated. These CDs
are going to keep kicking around for years.
It's either that or the source syntax gets manually
converted but I'm having a terrible time with that.
> Of course, rule #2 is going to define what language
> the code will be
> written in, and I can't even make up my mind what I
> think the right
> answer is, so I dunno how we can get the whole
> community to agree...
Wouldn't it just be C or C++? I don't think either
have multiplatform issues when you are just writing
command-line apps.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://stella.biglist.com
