[Coco] MESS needs a C++ programmer dedicated to the Coco

[Mark McDougall]

On 1/05/2011 10:35 AM, gene heskett wrote:

> I disagree with this advice totally, Mark.
>
> While I have never had occasion to need or use MESS, and don't have a copy
> laying around since my real coco's are alive and well, asking the coco
> folks to just roll over and play dead until such time as the MESS folks
> decide they haven't heard from us in yonks, so why should they care at this
> late date, is a bit over the top presumptuous I think.

Gene, you misunderstand my statement.

I was advising only that any major overhaul to the Coco driver could 
(potentially) be a wasted effort if a subsequent port to the MAME 
mainline code invalidates those changes. I'm not saying they will, but 
they *could*. I do know, for example, that the MAMEDEV team were 
recently looking at the whole non-ROM loading mechansim and I wouldn't 
be surprised if there are significant changes to the way this works.

> We DID make a significant contribution to the gaming scene at one time, and
> I for one, do not appreciate the coco being arbitrarily thrown under the
> bus by one of the emulators.

'Significant'? I had a coco myself back in the day and am as fond of it 
as anyone but claiming a 'significant' contribution is a looking back 
with rose-coloured glasses IMHO. Now Apple & Commodore - significant.

To claim that the Coco was 'arbitrarily thrown under a bus' is not fair 
either. I would bet that there are plenty of MESS (and MAME) drivers in 
the same - or worse - shape than the Coco. The 'team' have no obligation 
to maintain a particular driver, nor do they 'actively choose' to let it 
disintegrate. Aside from the small team of core architects, it's up to 
the driver authors to ensure that their code is kept up-to-date. And if 
no-one tells the right person that there is a problem, nothing will get 
fixed.

You get what you pay for.

Regards,

-- 
|    Mark McDougall    |  Error: witty remark not found!
| <http://pacedev.net> |