[Coco] 3rdPart Editor

Bill Gunshannon 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 mailing list