CompuServe Thread

#Shell V2.10

11 messages in this thread
#17490From: RON TROYOct 19, 1988 7:02 AM
Please let me know. Its hard to figure out what to do now that cbm is now beginning to do some of what outsiders have been doing for 3 years. BTW, I heard last night that cbm rejected arp for 1.4 because it was written to do away with bcpl – judging from what I'd heard here that seems very possible, however strange!
#17563From: KEITH YOUNGOct 19, 1988 2:20 PM
The ARP commands were not rejected because they did away with BCPL… they ( C-A ) want 'C' commands, not BCPL and not ASM… for maintainability reasons. – Keith
#17641From: RON TROYOct 19, 1988 11:02 PM
Some cbm people were quoted as saying that they felt that they needed to keep bcpl, because they were most familiar with it, though I have also heard some thoughts on C.
#17680From: Jason GoldbergOct 20, 1988 12:01 AM
I can promise you that CBM is defanitly attempting to move away from the BCPL.
#17870From: Don Curtis/SYSOPOct 21, 1988 12:46 AM
They needed to keep the BCPL hooks, because much of the Exec (the kernel) is written in BCPL.
#17923From: microsmithsOct 21, 1988 10:01 AM
The Exec isn't BCPL – it's mostly if not all Assembler, written by Carl Sassenrath. But most of DOS is in BCPL, with some linkage stuff in dos.library to convert data into more C-compatible formats.
#18027From: Don Curtis/SYSOPOct 22, 1988 2:55 AM
Humm…I was under the impression (apparently mistaken) that some of exec was in BCPL due to it's heritage and MetaComCo. I knew some was in assembler, but didn't think the majority of it was, but I'll take your word on that…you guys know lots more about that than I do.
#18106From: microsmithsOct 22, 1988 4:43 PM
Not Exec. The adjustments which were made were done on the TripeOS side; Exec doesn't know anything about DOS, except how to fire it up which is the same as with other subsystems like Intuition-
#18211From: John DraperOct 23, 1988 4:43 AM
Who were they and who 'quoted' them?
#17674From: Betty ClayOct 19, 1988 11:58 PM
I do know that CBM has no particular love for BCPL. I heard quite a long while ago that some of the things they wanted to do would not work until they had eliminated the BCPL from the system. But it is my understanding that it is not BCPL itself that is the problem – it is in the BCPL compiler. They can't get the source to a compiler to fix it, and the ones available (if I remember my gossip correctly) are inadequate for the job. At any rate, they would like to have the entire system written in either C or assembler as much as anyone else would.
#17732From: RON TROYOct 20, 1988 10:00 AM
Well for the moment, I hope Cheath and friends come up with updated commands (like list showing the 'new' flags) until cbm figures out what it wants to do here. I hate going back to some of the much larger cbm commands, the lack of the * wildcard, etc.