carmel_andrews Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 like the following Atari basic or MS basic/Basic II Turbo Basic (800 or xl version) or Basic XL/xe AMAC or Mac 65 Atari Assembler or EASMD (OSS) Deep blue C or C/65 or Ace C ValForth or Fig Forth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urchlay Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 You might as well ask a bunch of rednecks "Which kind of pickup truck is best?" Er, or, being from the UK, you may have no idea what that means (lucky you!) You might as well ask an assorted group of retro gamers, "Which is the best console?" You're going to get, at best, no consensus... and at worst, it'll degenerate into a flame-fest. Eh, I guess maybe I'm being too literal-minded. You didn't ask the question because you really want to know the answer, maybe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+bf2k+ Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 You might as well ask a bunch of rednecks "Which kind of pickup truck is best?" Toyota! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirage Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 You might as well ask a bunch of rednecks "Which kind of pickup truck is best?" Toyota! No, Fiat-Dodge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorf Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Just tell me what processor, give me an assembler for it, and get out of my way. Except for any 80X86 based garbage, there is no processor I'd rather code in high level language. Now if we are talking time, then on a platform like the PC, definitely C. Mac and linux too. Consoles? Especially todays......a bit of both. C for the fluff code and Assembler for the rubber meeting road stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accousticguitar Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Toyota! Them's fightin words! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I love My Truck (even though it really isn't a truck). So, another Carmel quasi-poll... As far as I'm concerned, small slow systems like the A8 should be programmed in assembly unless you're writing something fairly trivial. An advanced BASIC can be handy for whipping up a quick utility, though. I do Atmel AVR programming at work and I use a mix of C and assembly simply because I have a 20MHz clock. -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickled_Pink Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I love My Truck (even though it really isn't a truck). So, another Carmel quasi-poll... As far as I'm concerned, small slow systems like the A8 should be programmed in assembly unless you're writing something fairly trivial. An advanced BASIC can be handy for whipping up a quick utility, though. I do Atmel AVR programming at work and I use a mix of C and assembly simply because I have a 20MHz clock. -Bry Depends how lazy you are. If you're as lazy as I am then you'll do your best to find a decent high-level language to do at least some of the grunt work and speed up dev times. I love 6502 and 68000 assembly, but can only handle them in small doses. There have been a few decent high level languages that could rival pure assembly for most things - Action, PL65 and Quick. Personally I preferred PL65 simply because there wasn't a mass of keywords to learn, and I could write much of my code in 6502 if I wanted ... not to mention that it also has direct support for interrupts, which could be written either using high level PL65 or inline assembly. Turbo Basic, although popular, doesn't cut it IMO. It's too memory hungry to do anything really serious in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urchlay Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 As far as I'm concerned, small slow systems like the A8 should be programmed in assembly unless you're writing something fairly trivial. An advanced BASIC can be handy for whipping up a quick utility, though. I do Atmel AVR programming at work and I use a mix of C and assembly simply because I have a 20MHz clock. C has its place on the A8... I've written a Mac/65 detokeniser that can be compiled for Linux/Mac/Windows or Atari 8-bit (with cc65), works the same everywhere (eh, but slower on the A8...) Also I don't even want to think about writing a TCP/IP stack from scratch in 6502 asm... fortunately uIP exists and (with slight modifications) compiles & runs on the A8. Otherwise I'd never have gotten FujiChat off the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ransom Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Back when I was programming the A8, I preferred using Mac/65 for assembly language stuff. All of OSS's products were pretty good, IMO. Action! and BASIC XE/XL were really fine products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Have to agree, OSS made some really fine stuff. I used Mac/65 back when it came on floppy and when the cart came out with built-in DDT, that was just luxury. But then they came out with Action! and I found myself using that more often than not. Even stuff that eventually got coded in ASM was prototyped in Action!. As far as trucks go, I have a Ford but I ain't proud of it. /me hangs head in shame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warriorisabouttodie Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 You might as well ask a bunch of rednecks "Which kind of pickup truck is best?" Toyota! No, Fiat-Dodge! you are both wrong, Ford Ranger rulez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Like a ROCK! Chevy baby!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+poobah Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I do Atmel AVR programming at work and I use a mix of C and assembly simply because I have a 20MHz clock. In all fairness, the AVRs are very well suited to C. In most cases I think the compiler does about as good as I would have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I'm a 6502 assembler die-hard but I must take a look at Action! and PL65 when I get a chance. I do all my development with the MA65 assembler, which is tailored for use with SpartaDOS. Experiments with other languages tended to result in frustration because of lack of support for the OS command line, or reliance on a particular DOS. A notable exception was the excellent CC65, for which I wrote a SpartaDOS library in pure RA65 assembler (which I'll release some time), but the compile times were huge. Higher level languages are great when recursive subroutines are called for; the ideal is something which generates very lean object files. PL65 definitely looks worthy of inspection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urchlay Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 A notable exception was the excellent CC65 ... but the compile times were huge. Try the modern cc65 cross-compiler (www.cc65.org). It's based on the old Atari version of cc65, but has been under development for many years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Z80 Assembly Language, the best of the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Z80 Assembly Language, the best of the best. Best of the best? As compared to what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allas Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 There is no comparison with anything. For that reason is the unique and best. Direct fast programming at the core computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamageX Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 6502 and Z80 ASM are both pretty good (I like the former slightly better) although they have different strengths and weaknesses. The Z80 can do a 16-bit add in one instruction which is inconceivable in the 6502 world but it can't do a compare with any register other than A for instance. On the 6502 where I would break up data into multiple tables and use LDA table1,X LDA table2,X etc. on the Z80 I would do better to put it in one big table and use LD A,(IX+0) LD A,(IX+1) etc. 65816 is great if I can resist the urge to keep changing register widths. x86 is OK. I like being able to explicitly operate on the second byte of a register (AH, BH, etc.) since on most (16-bit or bigger) CPUs you need to mask/shift to get at any byte other than the lowest one. 68000 is still better. NEC V60 is another shamelessly CISC style arch. Nice to program for I'm sure but as with the x86 I wouldn't want to have to write the assembler. ARM, Hitachi SuperH, and NEC V810 are good for low level programming. Not being able to load constants makes me itch though. BASIC is nice for making big, slow code. Maybe the other high level languages are too but I don't use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Carmel you sure have a knack for asking bizarre questions that have no real answer. But to answer, I'd say the best one is the one that gives you the result you want with the least effort and most bang for the buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.