2 Jan
2012
2 Jan
'12
1:59 p.m.
On 2 January 2012 21:00, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
True! Mind you, there were platforms that were more accessible than
the Miggy. E.g. the Archimedes. :?)
-----
* Another Cameron Kaiser production, I think...
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Liam Proven
<lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes indeed. The company spent lots of effort on improving its hardware
and almost none on improving its software, which seemed foolish - but
on the other hand, didn't do it any harm in the 8-bit days. (Although
many of the toys in the Secret Weapons of Commodore* would have been
/much/ better options than the C128 or indeed SX64!)
It was, for me, one of
the greatest weaknesses of the Commodore line of home computers - the
VIC-20, Commodore 64, C128 and so forth - that their BASIC was very
primitive, had no commands for structured programming and, crucially,
no commands for sound, graphics, colour or any of the media facilities
of the underlying hardware.
Yep. ?It was pretty much 1970s Microsoft BASIC all the way through,
starting with the PETs in 1977. One of the
things that frustrates me with C21 OSs and languages is
that the graphics facilities of machines are locked away behind the
high walls of libraries and APIs designed for professional developers
- which are simply too hard for an interested amateur such as myself.
That's not a C21 issue... look back 20+ years and build something
graphical on Amiga's Intuition API or for X.