In article <48AC779E.7030606 at bluewin.ch>, Jos Dreesen / Marian Capel <jos.mar at bluewin.ch> writes: buggy, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. I would recommend using wxWidgets <http://www.wxwidgets.org> as your GUI layer. Its portable to Windows, Mac, and *nix. If you're willing, there is also a good book that you can purchase that will explain lots of stuff about wxWidgets. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

I've written a couple emulators using wxWidgets; it is highly recommended. It's API is showing its age, but it is still tons better than low level X11 or Win32. I wrote my Wang 2200 emulator without a single concern of OSX compatibility. It probably took about 8 hours to add some tweaks to make it run well on OSX. I haven't attempted a linux port, as I don't use it myself, but I would expect a similar amount of work to get it going on that platform (mostly getting the build automated, I'd expect). Qt is another API worth looking into; it is free to use for non-commercial projects. bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote: That is twice you've recently complained that people are writing emulators for machines that you'd like hardware for. At the risk of repeating myself (as I could swear this was hashed out recently, but it is only vague notion): I don't get your reasoning. Someone writing an emulator in no way precludes you or someone else from building hardware. In fact, it is a good stepping stone towards building real hardware. Even when building new hardware, building a software model first is often useful. Even if someone took the time to build a hardware version, emulators are a lot cheaper to reproduce. No, they don't feel exactly like the real hardware, but then again, neither does your pet, FPGA-based emulation. And another thing [ :-) ], if an emulation can pass the "computer Turing test," i.e., someone sitting at a remote terminal interacting with the computer can't tell if it is real or emulated hardware, on what basis do you complain? "You numskulls doing XYZ are idiots. Don't you know the proper way is PQR? Nothing but PQR will do, it's obvious! Why, I'd do it myself, except I find I'd rather complain about people doing XYZ!" of course. someone with enough time and motivation could do it. Just spend hundreds, if not thousands, of hours working on it, spend another hundred hours putting together a website to share what you've done and give away all the designs you have created and all the information you have collected. Then wait for the complainers to let you know how THEY would have done it. Pascal doesn't mention 16b or 32b anywhere in any language spec I've seen. I've run Pascal programs on a PC, and that is 32b, so yes, Pascal does run on 32b machines.

In article <48ADC14B.6040804 at pacbell.net>, Jim Battle <frustum at pacbell.net> writes: Qt has the major disadvantage of not working "out of the box" with Visual C++ Express editions (which are free). This creates a barrier for other people to contribute to the project because it is more work to set up a compilation environment (you have to use gcc under cygwin or MingW, neither of which is as easy to setup as VC++ Express). -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

On 21 Aug 2008 at 13:02, Rich Alderson wrote: ...and a 1's complement machine at that. Cheers, Chuck

In article <48ADD402.3020604 at bluewin.ch>, Jos Dreesen / Marian Capel <jos.mar at bluewin.ch> writes: Its in the queue... believe it or not, I don't own a digital camera yet, or there would already be a flickr album online :) -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

e.stiebler wrote: Now that you ask ... :) The reason I was asking is that Pascal and Modula 2 and Smalltalk all had a great deal of hype in BYTE about the mid 1980's. Then they all seemed to vanish as the PC's and the Mac's took over the Personal Computer market place. I grew up using real hardware -- PDP/8e,PDP8/S, IBM 1130. Even snuck in some time on a VAX. I don't mind people writing emulators but I feel hardware just has a better HANDS on feel for what machine can do. I have to some day get a REAL terminal (Hardware) so I can get my PDP 8 clone runing with the right feel. TTL and BIT Slice design I can handle but software for a small machine is out of my ball park. I expect to spend about 2 grand on a one of a kind homebrew but then I will have learned a little about hardware from the mid 1980's. I am playing around now with a 20 bit machine, since all I have is 21 flat handle toggle switches for a hardware front panel. I ordered 24 but they goofed and sent 3 momentary switches instead. I could design a 16 bit machine, but then I am back to the classic architecture with a single AC: {OP}{INDIRECT}{ADDRESS}. All most all the modern Instruction Sets are from the late 1970's and they are very complex -- 68000,8088/8086 ect. I am looking for design in the middle, and even that is hard since BIPOLAR PROM is very hard to find nowdays.I am using a CPLD since I have one rather than 4 - 512x8 PROM's.

If you still want to write directly atop Xlib, for any reason, I can perhaps help; I've done a fair bit of X code using nothing above Xlib. (Yes, I know the Henry Spencer quote. I disagree with him.) /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B