| 1 |
You should have a look at purebasic. Inline Assembler is possible here |
| 2 |
too! :-) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
You are right C is a lot easier than Assembler. |
| 5 |
But Purebasic is a lot easier that C too :-) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. August 2005 19:34 schrieb A. Khattri: |
| 9 |
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Markus [utf-8] Döbele wrote: |
| 10 |
> > The code I think is not the problem. But I think it is still a lot of |
| 11 |
> > work. By the way I don't like C too much (we had a C Version once and |
| 12 |
> > only encountered problems all the time :-( Buffer overflows and all this |
| 13 |
> > nice stuff is a big problem of this language!) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You mean it requires understanding pointers and attention to detail? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Yes it does. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> An assembly programmer should find C easy (well I did anyway). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > I started as a Assembler Programmer on the Atari ST (68000 Rulez!!!) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I started on the 6502, then 68000 then 8086... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> > But all this is too much effort. Purebasic has a very syntax and for a |
| 26 |
> > basic dialect a very good performance. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Shame BBC Basic isn't around anymore - it allowed you to mix assembler and |
| 29 |
> BASIC (and that basic at the time was one of the few that allowed |
| 30 |
> recursion ;-) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives