#Dice C compier
17 messages in this thread
I have just gotten the Dice compiler to work that I havd received from
CranWare. I had to get the developer kit from C=. My question is this,
the system works under 1.3, but not under2.0 is there another version of
the Dice compiler for 2.0, and if so, how do I get it. As I have just got
the thing to work tonight, I am not yet a registered user. But I did see
some of the comments about using it with a floppy only system, and I must
say that I only have a 1mg a1000, with an A1020 external drive added. Can
you use the 2.0 version on this type of set up? Thanks, Gary.
Gary,
Matt says in his README file that you can install it and run it on a
floppy only system. I'll find out later tonight if this is true since I
will be setting it up for someone else who has had problems. One thing
Matt did mention is that you have to run the Install program multiple times
and select which files you want to go on each floppy.
With respect to 2.0, you have two choices, order the Native Developers
kit from CBM, which also includes the AutoDOCS as well, or register the
program. My copy came from Matt with the 2.0 includes on the installation
disks.
Good luck.
Brian Bartlett
Brian, Thanks for the reply, but I did order the Native developers kit for
2.0 and it does seem to work fine. I did not get dice to work under 2.0
however. What is autodocs? I have never used it, although I did see it on
the disk. (or is it just the documentation?). I guess that I should read
the directions beeter the next time! I am just begginning to learn C, and
I do plan to register the compiler if I find that I can pick the language
up. Thanks again, Gary.
Gary,
to get DICE to compile 2.0 specific code, you'll need to perform some
setup work with the directories. Basically, you would have the include
files for 1.3 in a directory called amiga13 and the 2.0 includes in a
directory called, appropriately enough, amiga20. Then, add to the
DICE-Startup file a line 'setenv DCCOPTS "-2.0"' or 'setenv DCCOPTS "-1.3"'
(without the single quotes, of course). This will automagically change the
path that DICE uses to search for include files and will also change which
of the amiga##.lib libraries it uses. You could also use an alias in the
shell to change the version on the fly. Pretty handy.
As for the AutoDOCS, these are summary listings of what every function
in the various libraries expect for input, what they give back, and what
the heck the purpose of the routine is, as well. Very handy, especially in
light of the fact that you can write 90% of the user interface using
straight boiler-plate from the manuals. Beats the heck out of Windows,
IMAO. At least it's pretty consistent.
Good luck on learning C. If you need any help, just yell. We have some
real aces around here. (Not including myself, I'm just a slightly bright
novice in C).
Brian Bartlett
What part of the AutoDOCs beats the heck out of Windows? Borland C++ costs
about as much as a year's worth of support from CATS, yet it includes 30
megs of tutorials, class libraries, Windows libraries, online and paper
docs to fill a small shelf. Arguably more than ever's been printed for the
Amiga, I'd say. As for tools, which Amiga code-development tools beat the
ones available for Windows? (Just continuing my devil's advocate harangues
about Windows vs. Amiga vs. Mac vs. all comers… I *do* think Amigans can
be successful in defending this machine, but let's keep the facts straight,
and only harp on things that Mac- and Windows-heads don't have.)
Well, the honeymoon's over — John's back to his old ways <grin>
-sja
John,
my brother is an IBM fanatic and just happens to program the beasties.
He's quite bright, usually, and _he_ can't figure out windows programming.
My fellow compratiot when I working for the Navy was an IBM god. Can you
say assembly written on the fly without looking up the hexcodes? I thought
so. His opinion of the way that windows is programmed is unprintable.
I rely on two experts on programming that machine. So sue me.
Brian Bartlett
Former DOS or mainframe programmers who've never before encountered
event-loop style programming will certainly hit a number of walls when they
encounter Windows. Aside from my own immersion into Windows, which went
quite easy, I look to my former business partner, Bob Tolly, the guy who
did most of TSSnet for Syndesis. With his Amiga skills, and his track
record as a manager, he got a senior programmer position at Software
Publishing Corporation. He was up to speed on Windows (designing and coding
dialogs and gadgets, etc.) in about 120 hours. "It's so much easier than
Intuition," he'd say. On the other hand, he had no idea of how lame and
bad DOS really was, either, from a programmer's perspective.
As for hex codes, I could do that with the 6502 once upon a time, and the
8080 before that, but no longer… Now I use things called "assemblers"
and "compilers". 🙂 My criticism of your statement wasn't a personal
attack, please remember… but from a peek at your sources, both IBM
(mainframe? mini?) programmers, it doesn't surprise me that they said what
they did.
I must agree with you on learning to program windows. I was writing
windows Apps within a couple of days of getting Petzold's book and Borland
C++. I believe that an Amiga programmer has much better chance at
programming windows than a die=hard PC programmer.
John,
no, they were IBM programmers ala the micro-computer. <Shrug>
Brian Bartlett
I'll agree with you that DOS type programmers will have more trouble with
Windows than people used to event driven programming. I myself was more or
less up to speed with Windows in a fairly short time.
On the other hand, give me the Amiga or even the Macintosh any day over
Windows as far as ease of programming goes. Windows somehow manages to
make the most trivial bits of code incredibly complex. Part of that is due
to the flakey Intel architecture, but a lot of it is simply poor design on
Microsoft's part, IMHO.
And flipping back to the comment which seems to have started this thread,
I'll agree: The Autodocs are infinately better than what's included with
Windows. You say they come with lots of examples and the like? There's a
reason for that: They *need* them. Badly. The Windows documentation is
incomplete, poorly organized, and written incoherently. There isn't even an
index for the main programming manuals, for heaven's sake! Nor a cross
reference. The style guide makes numerous references to things people
ought to do which aren't even implemented in Windows (although they *are*
in Microsoft's own applications…)
Even with the programming examples, not a week has gone by where I
haven't found some need to send off a question to Microsoft on things which
really ought to be obvious.
Ah well, that's enough ranting about Windows for one evening. It's bad
enough I need to go work with it some more tomorrow. Flame Off!
–>Steve Bennett
Gee, if you can say that about the Windows examples, I wonder what you say
about the Amiga's examples… 🙂 Really, you think it's "easier" tweaking
the positions of gadgets via your favorite text editor, than with resources
and resource editors?
You still lay out gadgets on graph paper or in DPaint or something like
that? Time to spring for ToolMaker or download GadToolsBox.
…Steve
Come on – I ordered ToolMaker like everyone else, it arraived last week the
day after I complained that it hadn't shipped yet. And I'm still not
confident that a 2.0-only product won't suffer, so nifty new solutions that
only work under 2.0 aren't an option. And I'm not about to stake my
company's products on code generated by a PD program. My message said,
aren't the tools under Windows a little nicer than Intuition?
If you want to ask about graph-paper solutions, yes, I encourage you to
poll the developers here, ask them how they design their imagery.
Well, when programming on the Mac I prefer to tweak gadget positions
using ResEdit. On the Amiga, much of what I do hasn't used many
gadgets (with the exceptions of scrollbars, which are always relative
to the window anyway), so I couldn't really say in that case.
For Windows, however, the tools for doing the same thing are so poor,
I've written my own routines for handling lists of controls and
*do* tweak positions using a text editor. I can build dialogs and
the like at least twice as fast that way than using the dialog editor.
(Although I *do* use the Windows icon editor for icons. I'm not
totally masochistic… <grin>) The Windows dialog editor, BTW, is an
absolutely wonderful example of the inadequacy of the Windows
documentation, and a good example of poor user interface design as
well…
As for the Amiga programming examples, the code examples included in the
Libraries RKM and Devices RKM are quite good in and of themselves,
and show more about programming the Amiga than all the Windows
examples combined, and do it more clearly too. Add that to the fact that
the Windows equivilent to those two books (a rather pitifully small Guide
to Programming) is woefully inadequate and I'm surprised ANYONE can do
Windows programming.
–>Steve Bennett
When you say that dice doesn't run under 2.0, what do you mean? What are
the exact messages that you get? Note that you can still compile code for
1.3 that will run under 2.0, you just don't get access to all the system
routines that 2.0 provides.
I had gotten a guru meditation error. I will try it again to get the exact
error number.