Overview Features Coding ApolloOS Performance Forum Downloads Products Order Contact

Welcome to the Apollo Forum

This forum is for people interested in the APOLLO CPU.
Please read the forum usage manual.
Please visit our Apollo-Discord Server for support.



All TopicsNewsPerformanceGamesDemosApolloVampireAROSWorkbenchATARIReleases
Running Games and Apps.

AMOS Pro Source Code Is Now Available ...page  1 2 3 4 

Mr Niding

Posts 459
28 Sep 2017 19:13


Ive said it before, but it seems like I have to review it again; Hollywood is also a language that is being ACTIVELY developed for the Amiga 68k. I realise several people has said its very slow for certain tasks, and as a nondeveloper Im not going to try to argue either way.
But I think its important to keep to facts. Take Airsoft rather frequent updates on AW.net for example;
   
    EXTERNAL LINK   
Ill let SamuraiCrow comment on its merits since he seems to have some expirience with Hollywood.
  Steve seems less than impressed with it, which is fine.
   
Its still being updated tho, so kicking up a dialogue with its developer might be prudent to see if there is possibility of Vampire support...?
 
Talking to ACTIVE developers of higher languages seems like the first step. Talking for pages leads nowhere IF the developer has no intrest in supporting Vampire for example. IF the developer isnt intrested initially, will patreon help the motivation? etc
 
EXTERNAL LINK   
My 2 cents yet again.


Eric Gus

Posts 477
28 Sep 2017 20:07


Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:

Now you start sounding like a "purist" :)

No.. im more a pragmatist ..


Eric Gus

Posts 477
28 Sep 2017 20:10


Mr Niding wrote:

  Ive said it before, but it seems like I have to review it again; Hollywood is also a language that is being ACTIVELY developed for the Amiga 68k.
 

 
  But its not a complied language that generates machine native binaries but more of an interpreted scripting language yes? More akin to Amiga Vision or Scala or Director?


Steve Ferrell

Posts 424
28 Sep 2017 20:28


eric gus wrote:

 
Mr Niding wrote:

    Ive said it before, but it seems like I have to review it again; Hollywood is also a language that is being ACTIVELY developed for the Amiga 68k.
   

   
    But its not a complied language that generates machine native binaries but more of an interpreted scripting language yes? More akin to Amiga Vision or Scala or Director?
 

 
You are correct. And there haven't been any updates to the 68K version of Hollywood in years.  Recent upgrades/updates to Hollywood have focused on Windows, MacOS and Linux.  Starting in 2006 with version 2.0 it also required the use of a dedicated graphics card.  It is nothing more than a toy really.  Hollywood is a scripting language, slideshow creator with point-and-click capabilities. It should not be considered for useful application or game development.
If you want to create interactive Powerpoint-like presentations which include embedded multimedia, then it may be useful to you.


Samuel Crow

Posts 424
28 Sep 2017 20:28


re:Hollywood

It's a scripting language based on Lua that compiles to a bytecode.  The bytecode is interpreted so it's fairly slow but it is much more powerful than AmigaVision.  It's suitable for making graphic adventure games and has excellent plugin support.

Part of the reason for wanting Lua JIT adapted for the 020+ and Basic-like language support added to it is so Andreas Falkenhahn can make Hollywood faster.


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 22:47


I've seen assembler code and it means absolutely nothing to me.

Well, there is BRA and NOP that are completely understandable. Also, loading registers, adding them, and result to same or other register. But for the most part, it's just completely alien.

I am suspicious as to why, it isn't possible to make an "Easy Assembler" version of assembler coding?

Like, instead of "BRA" you type "goto" and the compiler changes it to appropriate assembler op-codes.

AMOS Pro has over 700 commands, the "Easy Assembler" would restrict you to the what, does anyone even know how many assembler instructions there are???

I think it is DELIBERATE that some type of "Easy Assembler" has never been made.


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 22:49


Fernando Pereira wrote:
For me, the Vampire project is NOT a mare hobby, it is an opportunity to revive the platform that granted me the best times I ever had in front of a computer screen. It really means a lot to me, hence my frustration. :)

I am 100% there with you on that!!!!!!!

IT'S NOT OVER YET!



Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 23:00


Talking about this is good.... BUT, there are VERY FEW Vampires out there, and there STILL isn't the necessary Gold Core release that the majority of people are waiting for..... (S-AGA, allowing for 50% chipram capability, etc.)

Vampire 4 standalone is going to REALLY accelerate (please excuse the bad pun, ;-)) our progress!!!!

It's all still "looking good" to me. :-DDD


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 23:07


Samuel Crow wrote:
re:Hollywood

It's a scripting language based on Lua that compiles to a bytecode.  The bytecode is interpreted so it's fairly slow but it is much more powerful than AmigaVision.  It's suitable for making graphic adventure games and has excellent plugin support.


I didn't think much of it (used it on my Amiga One XE 800MHz), but in it's defence, I will say, it is absolutely capable of making a game just like Myst.... and, correct me if I'm wrong, but, that did do pretty good, eh?


Steve Ferrell

Posts 424
28 Sep 2017 23:08


Thierry Atheist wrote:

I've seen assembler code and it means absolutely nothing to me.
 
  Well, there is BRA and NOP that are completely understandable. Also, loading registers, adding them, and result to same or other register. But for the most part, it's just completely alien.
 
  I am suspicious as to why, it isn't possible to make an "Easy Assembler" version of assembler coding?
 
  Like, instead of "BRA" you type "goto" and the compiler changes it to appropriate assembler op-codes.
 
  AMOS Pro has over 700 commands, the "Easy Assembler" would restrict you to the what, does anyone even know how many assembler instructions there are???
 
  I think it is DELIBERATE that some type of "Easy Assembler" has never been made.

Ok, your train has officially gone off the rails.  There has never been any deliberate conspiracy to make languages such as assembler "difficult" to learn.

Just because assembler is difficult for you doesn't mean there is a secret cabal of assembly programmers who are trying to keep you (or anyone else) from learning their preferred language.  Arabic is very difficult to learn as well and no one is cooking up conspiracy theories as to why it's difficult to learn.  Lack of exposure and a lack of competent instructors is the primary reason it's difficult, and assembler is no different.

Have you ever sought any formal training in assembler or other language that you term "difficult"?  I learned C and C++ in college and I'm thankful for the instruction I received there because I don't think I could have learned it on my own without an instructor to guide and challenge me.

Assembler is not a language that I would recommend trying to learn on one's own either.....nor Chinese or Russian.  Why don't you seek out a college course on assembler (or other "difficult" language) and stop cooking up conspiracy theories....or at a minimum buy a book on the subject.




Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 23:22


Samuel Crow wrote:
re:Hollywood

It's a scripting language based on Lua that compiles to a bytecode.  The bytecode is interpreted so it's fairly slow but it is much more powerful than AmigaVision.


Hi Samuel Crow,

I believe that the reasoning behind AmigaVison was "hey, look at just a fraction of what AMIGA could do if someone else puts their mind to it" and does the "heavy lifting".

From there, we have CanDo EXTERNAL LINK (read the most interesting claim there!!!) and the INCREDIBLE ScalaMM!!!!!!

Amiga "was there" ALWAYS (and FIRST!).... but still fell flat on it's face.... IBM and ms were JUST TOO BIG to compete with!


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 23:43


Steve Ferrell wrote:
Ok, your train has officially gone off the rails. There has never been any deliberate conspiracy to make languages such as assembler "difficult" to learn.

Okay then, care to direct me to a single (one) page on the internet that has every 68060 assembler instruction on it?

How about C? I've asked about C before, and NOBODY could tell me how many C instructions there were. That language, by the way, is disgusting and repulsive!!!
Steve Ferrell wrote:
Just because assembler is difficult for you doesn't mean there is a secret cabal of assembly programmers who are trying to keep you (or anyone else) from learning their preferred language.

You're wrong; as they've DELIBERATELY chosen to force people to use CRYPTIC SHORTHAND when normal words could be used, and the COMPILER could substitute the short form for you when it's modified to be runnable by the CPU!!!!

Steve Ferrell wrote:
Have you ever sought any formal training in assembler or other language that you term "difficult"?

No.

But MANY have recommended C to me, and tried to tell me a few things about it, but C being, and I stress very illogical I was simply incapable of using it. They kept saying "but it has strict rules" and all I saw was nonsense. Like for example (the idiotic),  compulsory "return 0;"... Not in MY world view, thank you very much, because, if I DO NOT include it, IT SHOULD BE IMPLIED and AUTO-GENERATED as a response! "Problem solved".


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
28 Sep 2017 23:58


Look at how much garbage is generated by the simple question:
Why "return 0;"?

EXTERNAL LINK 
And on this page (which starts with "Almost in every program we code there is mostly" (guess what?)), EXTERNAL LINK simply:
"In every C program you have to use return return 0; (or return -1;, or whatever... ), because the main function signature requires it."

Oh,... oh, okay.

And then some comment is that a -1 means it didn't succeed. Well, if I 'print "hello world" ' and it DOESN'T, how the heck would I know that it DIDN'T HAPPEN anyway????

The programmer is in charge of his code, if he's waiting for a result, he should (make and) check it out.


Kolbjørn Barmen
(Needs Verification)
Posts 219/ 2
29 Sep 2017 00:00


Thierry Atheist wrote:

  Okay then, care to direct me to a single (one) page on the internet that has every 68060 assembler instruction on it?

CLICK HERE


Kolbjørn Barmen
(Needs Verification)
Posts 219/ 2
29 Sep 2017 00:07


Thierry, do you know what $RC is in AmigaDOS?


Steve Ferrell

Posts 424
29 Sep 2017 00:07


Thierry Atheist wrote:

 
Steve Ferrell wrote:
Ok, your train has officially gone off the rails. There has never been any deliberate conspiracy to make languages such as assembler "difficult" to learn.

  Okay then, care to direct me to a single (one) page on the internet that has every 68060 assembler instruction on it?
 
  How about C? I've asked about C before, and NOBODY could tell me how many C instructions there were. That language, by the way, is disgusting and repulsive!!!
 
Steve Ferrell wrote:
Just because assembler is difficult for you doesn't mean there is a secret cabal of assembly programmers who are trying to keep you (or anyone else) from learning their preferred language.

  You're wrong; as they've DELIBERATELY chosen to force people to use CRYPTIC SHORTHAND when normal words could be used, and the COMPILER could substitute the short form for you when it's modified to be runnable by the CPU!!!!
 
 
Steve Ferrell wrote:
Have you ever sought any formal training in assembler or other language that you term "difficult"?

  No.
 
  But MANY have recommended C to me, and tried to tell me a few things about it, but C being, and I stress very illogical I was simply incapable of using it. They kept saying "but it has strict rules" and all I saw was nonsense. Like for example (the idiotic),  compulsory "return 0;"... Not in MY world view, thank you very much, because, if I DO NOT include it, IT SHOULD BE IMPLIED and AUTO-GENERATED as a response! "Problem solved".
 

 
68060....Here you go:  EXTERNAL LINK 
BTW, it was the very first hit on a Google search and it seems to be quite a good reference manual....Interesting that the secret cabal of assembly programmers haven't hidden it from us lesser souls.
 
 
And for C, I highly recommend this book.  It's no longer in print and is dated 1988 but is still quite useful for anyone who wants to start programming in C  EXTERNAL LINK 
But with any language, C and assembler included, there is no one definitive list of instructions.  Even the Addison-Wesley English dictionary gets new words added on a regular basis as do C/C++ and assembler. 
 
But I digress, you seem more than a bit irrational at the moment to  be engaged in constructive exchanges about languages, computer or otherwise.
 
Again, if you're having difficulties learning a language then I can only recommend formal instruction but you seem very determined to blame your lack of understanding on conspiracy theories....to each his own.
 
 
 
 


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
29 Sep 2017 00:07


Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
Thierry Atheist wrote:
Okay then, care to direct me to a single (one) page on the internet that has every 68060 assembler instruction on it?

http://www.apollo-core.com/index.htm?page=instructions

WOW!!

That's ALL the instructions of the 060 and 080 combined, then?

I am astonished and very impressed!!!!! :-)))

That is the biggest part of the battle, seeing all the instructions in ONE PLACE!


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
29 Sep 2017 00:08


Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
Thierry, do you know what $RC is in AmigaDOS?

No.



Kolbjørn Barmen
(Needs Verification)
Posts 219/ 2
29 Sep 2017 00:16


Thierry Atheist wrote:

Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
Thierry, do you know what $RC is in AmigaDOS?

  No.
 

So you never wondered what that

failat 21
in your S:Startup-Sequence does?


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
29 Sep 2017 06:04


Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
So you never wondered what that
failat 21
in your S:Startup-Sequence does?

There is extremely little explaining those aspects of ADOS.

I did get a sense that the failat value was cumulative, though.

So, I didn't spend much time wondering about something that had pretty much no explanation.

posts 76page  1 2 3 4