[Coco] Sigmon

[Robert Gault]

Arthur Flexser wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Robert Gault wrote:
> 
> 
>>Arthur Flexser wrote:
>>
>>>I used it mainly as a debugger and disassembler, and it was far better
>>>than Edtasm for that.  Since I wasn't assembling programs, the lack of
>>>disk I/O was irrelevant to me, and I never even bothered to use the disk
>>>version.  I now recollect some of the most important commands:
>>>
>>>DIS 2000 start disassembling at $2000
>>>STEP 2000 single step at $2000, one step per press of the space bar
>>>BRK 2000 set breakpoint at $2000
>>>GO 2000 like "exec $2000"
>>>PRT (or maybe PRT ON) send output to printer
>>>ASM assemble
>>>QUIT
>>>
>>>
>>>Art
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why did you consider this program better than ZBUG in EDTASM+ for 
>>disassembly?
>>
> 
> 
> I don't really recollect very well.  I liked the ease of single stepping
> and using breakpoints--I'm not sure how well ZBUG supported those
> functions.  I think the program was also smaller and loaded faster than
> Edtasm.
> 
> Art
> 
> 
> 


ZBUG single steps, handles breakpoints easily, and will print generated 
source code. The one main failing of the program is that it does not 
save the source code.

It is interesting to note that because MESS is available, you can now 
send the ZBUG output to a disk text file via MESS. My EDTASM6309 patch 
for EDTASM+ will accept as input a source file without line numbers. So 
now I can use ZBUG to generate a source which will compile.

For those that don't have EDTASM6309, programs like Microsoft Word will 
add line numbers to text files. The result could then be read by EDTASM+.