[Coco] Re: CoCo needs?

[KnudsenMJ at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/8/05 2:45:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, james at skwirl.ca  
writes:

>A  working, modern-machine-hosted C compiler. :) Easier said than done,  of
>course. That's, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing holding back  CoCo
>software development. As much work as it is to learn C, assembly's  even
>harder.



Just so I don't say anything useless (again :-) could you guys remind me  
which of the following are the major problem/issue with the current Microware  
OS-9 C compiler, plus all of our own enhancements:
 
1.  It runs old fashioned K&R C (our add-ons help with this, and  so what?)
 
2.  It can't take advantage of 6309 native mode instructions (a biggie  for 
Nitro fuelers)
 
3.  It only runs under OS-9, and AFAIK generates code usable only  under OS-9 
(though you could link in a BASIC oriented library)
 
4.  It isn't part of an IDE (this is a DIS-advantage??)
 
5. It only runs on the Coco (but doesn't it run much faster on a PC Coco  
emulator?  With all the PC support tools we have now, does it need to run  
"native PC Windows?")
 
Tremendous things have been done with the existing C system -- should we be  
wasting the best talent trying to forge slightly better tools, instead of  
working on apps?  ISTR this argument being raised 10 and 15 years  ago.
 
Sorry if this sounds argumentative, but I'm confused here.  Remind me  why we 
need another C compiler.  Thanks, Mike K.