Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On 6 Mar 2001, at 23:01, Arvid Borretzen wrote: > By the way, the joy programming a PC is exactly the same as programming a > Ql. Personally, I don't agree. I prefer programming on the QL. Wolfgang
RE: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
At the risk of severe flaming : I am basically (no pun intended) a programmer at heart. I like to program. On the QL, programming is fun because yoy know how to get close to the hardware - if you want to - and people are available to give advice, code help etc. On the PC, I use Delphi and/or C++Builder and they are similar to EasyPtr in that they are drag and drop programming - but you still have to add in your own code to do the actual job in hand, and again, there are newsgroups to help out. I like programming both, but overall, and for ease of programming, the PC does have a slight lead :o( Of course, the advantage on the QL is that I CAN program in assembler if I choose, while on the PC, I can't. (I can almost hear Marcel saying "why not ?" - the answer is I never learned because of the old style segmented architecture of the older processors and the thought of all that does put me off !) (Ducks and runs !) Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com -Original Message- From: Wolfgang Lenerz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL On 6 Mar 2001, at 23:01, Arvid Borretzen wrote: > By the way, the joy programming a PC is exactly the same as programming a > Ql. Personally, I don't agree. I prefer programming on the QL. Wolfgang
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 at 10:22:39, Wolfgang Lenerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Ref: <3AA60BEF.32483.5192C7@localhost>) >On 6 Mar 2001, at 23:01, Arvid Borretzen wrote: > > >> By the way, the joy programming a PC is exactly the same as programming a >> Ql. >Personally, I don't agree. I prefer programming on the QL. Ditto. QL basic for instance is very much part of me now. and what a good basic it is. One example of accessibility and system wide integration I always quote is my incoming fax system. Phil Borman's PBOX integrates incoming fax. That I guess is the prime reason my BBS still lives after all these years. One Friday evening, 15 minutes before I was off to Eindhoven for the usual wine run, Sarah said she was expecting a fax. I only print out if I need to, and there was no time to explain how to do it. I made a quick change to my on-screen display program. Instead of ex qfv2;fax$ I changed this to EX printfax;fax$ and re-compiled. I can now switch by using an ENV variable in my boot. There are so many changes one can make to third party programs by using parallel compiled SB. OK there are many sophisticated programs on the PC, but if they don't do exactly what you want to do - tough. . but the fax never came (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On 7 Mar 2001, at 10:06, Tony Firshman wrote: > QL basic for instance is very much part of me now. > and what a good basic it is. Oh yes. And do you know what I like most about it? If something doesn't exist, you can EASILY write a new keyword that'll do what you want, with all the speed of machine code. Ok, so admittedly, you have to know machine code for this, but still, the QL machine code is not so difficult. Wolfgang
RE: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On 7 Mar 2001, at 9:26, Norman Dunbar wrote: > At the risk of severe flaming : (snip) > (Ducks and runs !) * ... into my shelter, because I happen to think just the same! Wolfgang
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
Norman Dunbar wrote: > Of course, the advantage on the QL is that I CAN program in assembler if I > choose, while on the PC, I can't. Better don't start it. It's horrible ;-) > (I can almost hear Marcel saying "why not?" No, I don't :) Marcel
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 at 14:27:22, Wolfgang Lenerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Ref: <3AA6454A.23640.131A7C1@localhost>) >On 7 Mar 2001, at 10:06, Tony Firshman wrote: > > >> QL basic for instance is very much part of me now. >> and what a good basic it is. >Oh yes. >And do you know what I like most about it? If something doesn't >exist, you can EASILY write a new keyword that'll do what you >want, with all the speed of machine code. > >Ok, so admittedly, you have to know machine code for this, but >still, the QL machine code is not so difficult. Yes indeed. My first foray into m/c was the 6502 with all sorts of weird addressing modes that I never fully understood. I understood MOVE, almost, simply from the command structure. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
> >Ok, so admittedly, you have to know machine code for this, but > >still, the QL machine code is not so difficult. > Yes indeed. My first foray into m/c was the 6502 with all sorts of > weird addressing modes that I never fully understood. It was my lecturer's uncertainty in the indirect modes of addressing that meant that my first year micro project at university was to get a Commodore Pet to calculate 2**3000 (every digit). I loved the 6502 with (what I'd consider to be) its semi-risc architecture: 3 internal registers (AXY), 256 (pairable) external "registers" (zero page), syncronous memory accessing, pipelining (resulting in small number of clock cycles per instruction)...oh such memories...
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
> >And do you know what I like most about it? If something doesn't >exist, you can EASILY write a new keyword that'll do what you >want, with all the speed of machine code. > >Ok, so admittedly, you have to know machine code for this, but >still, the QL machine code is not so difficult. Not necessarily - you can compile procedures with QLib or make a Turbo task into a keyword if you want, for example. In addition to named procedures in S*BASIC of course. Provided you aren't after sheer speed, the ability to extend the language via a simple compiled basic procedure is great. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On Mar 7, 9:30pm, Dilwyn Jones wrote: > Not necessarily - you can compile procedures with QLib or make a Turbo > task into a keyword if you want, for example. In addition to named > procedures in S*BASIC of course. I know Qlib will create extensions, but I don't think TURBO will create an extension that can be LRESPRed (like a toolkit). I'm pretty sure Simon mentioned that it was not possible. Am I wrong? Tim Swenson
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >At the risk of severe flaming : Why :-) >I am basically (no pun intended) a programmer at heart. >I like to program. >On the QL, programming is fun because yoy know how to get close to the >hardware - if you want to - and people are available to give advice, code >help etc. >On the PC, I use Delphi and/or C++Builder and they are similar to EasyPtr in >that they are drag and drop programming - but you still have to add in your >own code to do the actual job in hand, and again, there are newsgroups to >help out. > >I like programming both, but overall, and for ease of programming, the PC >does have a slight lead :o( >Of course, the advantage on the QL is that I CAN program in assembler if I >choose, while on the PC, I can't. (I can almost hear Marcel saying "why not >?" - the answer is I never learned because of the old style segmented >architecture of the older processors and the thought of all that does put me >off !) I agree that programming on the QL is in fatc quite a joy - once you have made the effort to learn how to do it. Both BASIC and C are approachable if you put together your own set of tools like editor, text viewer, etc. The advantage that the PC has is that there has been much more develop in giving programmers an environment to work in. Like your examples. These would be great to have on the QL ... yet who is going to do the work to bring it about ? >On 6 Mar 2001, at 23:01, Arvid Borretzen wrote: > >> By the way, the joy programming a PC is exactly the same as programming a >> Ql. >Personally, I don't agree. I prefer programming on the QL. > >Wolfgang -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
On Mar 8, 7:40pm, Malcolm Cadman wrote: > I agree that programming on the QL is in fatc quite a joy - once you > have made the effort to learn how to do it. Programming on the PC (either in Windows or Linux) is easier from the aspect that there is more documentation, more tools, and more people. I like programming on the QL cause if I want to tackle a particular programming subject, odds are, I'd be the first to do it, thereby making my program valuable to the QL community. In the PC world, odds are you are not the first to do it, thereby making your program just another sheep in the herd. Plus, I've been using QDOS for 15 years. 15 years of getting to know a single OS with minor revisions (from a SuperBasic programmer view point). In the PC world, 15 years covers a lot of OS revisions with major differences (MS-DOS to Windows being the biggest). From language of choice (Pascal in 1986 to C, to C++, to Java, to ) to programming tools (many different in the PC world). The QL has been something I've known and I've seen no need to change. Since I program for fun, the QL is much funner than a PC. Unix is more fun than a PC, but no even close to the QL. Tim Swenson
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
I'm not 100% sure, but I think there was a program supplied with Turbo (written by Phil Borman?) called MAKE_KEYWORD_bas. I know Turbo can't directly create new keywords, although it's a feature I suggested to George Gwilt as a possible long term new facility to be looked into. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html -Original Message- From: Timothy Swenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 07 March 2001 21:42 Subject: Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL >On Mar 7, 9:30pm, Dilwyn Jones wrote: > >> Not necessarily - you can compile procedures with QLib or make a Turbo >> task into a keyword if you want, for example. In addition to named >> procedures in S*BASIC of course. > >I know Qlib will create extensions, but I don't think TURBO will create an >extension that can be LRESPRed (like a toolkit). I'm pretty sure Simon >mentioned that it was not possible. Am I wrong? > >Tim Swenson >
RE: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
I totaly agree : almost all what I learn on the QL 15 years ago is still up to date. In PC world no one finish a (commercial) program because when it is on the market environment had moved (OS, machine, memory, ...) and there is no time left for feed back (and correction). I suspect development teams are already drop when the product is sold. To be compared with, says, continuous support for C68 by Dave Walker team since 1992 or last update in Prowess (now in public domain) by PROGS -Message d'origine- De : Timothy Swenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 8 mars 2001 21:07 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL On Mar 8, 7:40pm, Malcolm Cadman wrote: > I agree that programming on the QL is in fatc quite a joy - once you > have made the effort to learn how to do it. Programming on the PC (either in Windows or Linux) is easier from the aspect that there is more documentation, more tools, and more people. I like programming on the QL cause if I want to tackle a particular programming subject, odds are, I'd be the first to do it, thereby making my program valuable to the QL community. In the PC world, odds are you are not the first to do it, thereby making your program just another sheep in the herd. Plus, I've been using QDOS for 15 years. 15 years of getting to know a single OS with minor revisions (from a SuperBasic programmer view point). In the PC world, 15 years covers a lot of OS revisions with major differences (MS-DOS to Windows being the biggest). From language of choice (Pascal in 1986 to C, to C++, to Java, to ) to programming tools (many different in the PC world). The QL has been something I've known and I've seen no need to change. Since I program for fun, the QL is much funner than a PC. Unix is more fun than a PC, but no even close to the QL. Tim Swenson
Re: SV: [ql-users] Nut cutlets - NO QL
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Timothy Swenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Mar 8, 7:40pm, Malcolm Cadman wrote: >> I agree that programming on the QL is in fatc quite a joy - once you >> have made the effort to learn how to do it. > >Programming on the PC (either in Windows or Linux) is easier from the aspect >that there is more documentation, more tools, and more people. > >I like programming on the QL cause if I want to tackle a particular programming >subject, odds are, I'd be the first to do it, thereby making my program >valuable to the QL community. > >In the PC world, odds are you are not the first to do it, thereby making your >program just another sheep in the herd. Yes, definitely a plus for the QL in enjoying the programming. People program PC's, usually, to try to make money. >Plus, I've been using QDOS for 15 years. 15 years of getting to know a single >OS with minor revisions (from a SuperBasic programmer view point). In the PC >world, 15 years covers a lot of OS revisions with major differences (MS-DOS to >Windows being the biggest). From language of choice (Pascal in 1986 to C, to >C++, to Java, to ) to programming tools (many different in the PC world). > The QL has been something I've known and I've seen no need to change. > >Since I program for fun, the QL is much funner than a PC. Unix is more fun >than a PC, but no even close to the QL. SuperBasics' structure is a classic of its kind. When used in a structured way it is a pleasure to put together a program. -- Malcolm Cadman
