27 Dec
2022
27 Dec
'22
6:29 a.m.
At no point was I asking for or expecting a recommendation of a compiler with an ide. In
fact it never entered my mind. If QuickC would run lock, stock, and barrel on a Northstar
Dimension I wouldn't be asking for anything. I did say the compiler couldn't rely
on typical IBM PC facilities to talk to the screen. Then you brought up disk (file) i/o,
which was a perfectly valid point, and I said so. So in the final analysis I guess
I'll be writing w hatever on a "real" pc. Sorry for wasting the list's
time. What I wanted may not exist.
Were you referring to the Poppy? How did programs talk to the disk drive? On Tuesday,
December 27, 2022, 01:04:00 AM EST, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 12/26/22 21:23, Chris via cctalk wrote:
I'm not conflating anything. Most of the time
screen i/o is accomplished using bios calls. That's with ms-dos/pc-dos software
(whatever the percentage of the time). But it's feally irrelevant if it's dos
compatible or not, as any code can make use of the bios subroutines. That's an
immediate show stopper if you can't get feedback from the compiler. Please no
references to early time sharing
Sure you are. Lattice had no IDE; it was strictly command-line
driven--if the input required a text editor, it was up to you to furnish
one. If the MSDOS hosting system used a BIOS, fine. But not all did.
Consider the MSDOS platforms that interfaced to a simple serial
terminal. In any case, console and file I/O is done via the DOS API.
How DOS does things is no concern of the compiler.
This is the way before fancy screen I/O that we did things. Before
that, it was with punched cards.
--Chuck