Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/05/29/11:34:35
scout AT golden DOT net wrote:
> >
> >I think that's it's also safe say that if HALF the commands between two
> >versions are missing, it's poorly portable, at best.
> >--
> No, it says that commands that are not typically portable are not
> portable, if you look closely you will see that DOS and windows are
> different. To knock GFA dos because it cannot do everything that
> windows can do is silly. Portability is achieved two different ways...
Do you program in GFA? No? Then shut up. Most (that is MOST) of the
commands will work. And in GFA for DOS, you do have prety good window
functions that NO other language has implememnted as well. How do you
open a window? Look:
DOS: OPENW #1,0,0,_x,_y,-1
Windows: OPENW #1,0,0,_x,_y,-1
Portable, isn't it. Not much of anything is different excluding the
commands that take advantage of the OS. Try reading the ENTIRE thread.
You'll find more info there.
> 1. Make the language so simple that the user cannot use OS calls.
> ofcourse, you can't have graphics because some systems do not have
> that ability, your only sound command can be BEEP, etc, etc.
HAHA! OH! What a feature! NO OS CALLS! Gee. I always wanted a language
that prevented me from making anything new. Not even QB is like this!
> 2. Make "basic" commands as portable as possible, but add "balls" to
> each system. Let the user use his skills to write code that is
> portable. I have/do do it. You should too. If you code in C, ASM or
> Basic keep your code portable as possible one day when your thousands
> of lines of code are obsolete you will remember me!
I always wanted advice from a nobody. I program in C, ASM, and many
flavors of BASIC. I'll give up portability to make my programs run
faster. When it comes to porting it, I'll make the required adaptions.
-- X-Bios
- Raw text -