[Coco] 3rdPart Editor
bill.gunshannon at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 18 13:14:52 EST 2018
On 12/18/18 7:19 AM, Francis Swygert wrote:
> Bill (Gunshannon) -- The OS9 C package is limited in many ways due to having to work in 64K.
See, to me that is not a limitation of the compiler but of the
host system. Kinda like trying to run Cygwin on a PC with 640K
of memory. Won't work, but not Cygwin's fault. :-)
> I think you're just discovering a lot of the limitations and are a bit annoyed by some of them,
It's not limitations I am annoyed with. It is obvious bugs and major
shortcomings in what I thought was a mature system. OS/9 was pretty
mature when this project started. I would have thought most of this
would have been cleaned up by now but it appears that much of this
has never even been tested.
> which you'd think would have been improved or more well documented by now. Ancient machine, ancient C package...
None of the problems I have run into are the fault of the C
package (unless you consider the "make" utility someone
threw in there a part of the package. It was not a part
of the original Radio Shack C Compiler package.)
I have found flaws in the FORMAT command and the OS9 DSAVE command.
I found a truncated file in the repo which means no one had ever
even tried to compile it. And even if it were not truncated it
would not have compiled because I also found a misplaced include
in the source.
> and you're used to more modern of both.
I first worked with OS9 35 years ago. I have worked with
both larger and smaller systems before and after that. I
realize you get what you pay for, but I honestly thought the
system would be more mature than what I found since getting
back into it. And I have only been back a week. I can't
wait to see what other surprises it holds in store. :-)
More information about the Coco