18 Jun
1999
18 Jun
'99
12:10 p.m.
After playing with BeOS a while something occurred to
me. Does anyone remember
at what point operating systems stopped coming with development tools? I'm
remembering the commodore 64 that came with Basic, and if you typed in the
assembler from the manual, you could (at least in theory) write proffessional
quality assembly language programs worthy of being sold to others.
Well, CP/M came with a good assembler, MS-DOS didn't. That's where
I draw the line in my head. Admittedly the version of ASM that came with
CP/M wasn't awfully featurefull, but it did work. And you got documentation
for writing programs with CP/M. And admittedly MS-DOS commonly was
installed with some version of MS-BASIC, but I (personally) don't
categorize that as a "real" development tool.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
18 Jun
18 Jun
12:46 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 521 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990618/d4544113/at…
12:57 p.m.
"Zane H. Healy" wrote:
You could do assembly using debug, but it was not what I would consider
"user friendly" :).
Well, CP/M came with a good assembler, MS-DOS
didn't. That's where
I draw the line in my head. Admittedly the version of ASM that came with
CP/M wasn't awfully featurefull, but it did work. And you got documentation
for writing programs with CP/M. And admittedly MS-DOS commonly was
installed with some version of MS-BASIC, but I (personally) don't
categorize that as a "real" development tool.
Didn't _early_ versions of MS-DOS come with an assembler of sorts? I could
have sworn they did. 
1:52 p.m.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Didn't _early_ versions of MS-DOS come with an
assembler of sorts? I could
have sworn they did.
PC-DOS did not.
Some OEMs of MS-DOS did; some didn't.
Prior to release of PC-DOS 1.00 and MASM 1.0, IBM supplied their
third-party developers with an assembler from Seattle Computer Products.
Nice SIMPLE CP/M-like assembler without all of the COBOL like overhead
that MASM wants.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
2:12 p.m.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Sell, the copies of PCDOS 1.0 & 1.1, Compaq DOS 1.11 & 1.12, and MSDOS
2.11 do not.
- don
Well, CP/M
came with a good assembler, MS-DOS didn't. That's where
I draw the line in my head. Admittedly the version of ASM that came with
CP/M wasn't awfully featurefull, but it did work. And you got documentation
for writing programs with CP/M. And admittedly MS-DOS commonly was
installed with some version of MS-BASIC, but I (personally) don't
categorize that as a "real" development tool.
Didn't _early_ versions of MS-DOS come with an assembler of sorts? I could
have sworn they did.
Zane
1:47 p.m.
>After playing with BeOS a while something occurred
to me. Does anyone remember
>at what point operating systems stopped coming with development tools? I'm
>remembering the commodore 64 that came with Basic, and if you typed in the
>assembler from the manual, you could (at least in theory) write proffessional
>quality assembly language programs worthy of being sold to others.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Heck, the Apple had its own ML monitor, too, as did
the Commodore
Plus/4, 16 and 128.
PC/MS-DOS, even WINDOZE!, has DEBUG. Not the tool of choice for large
projects, but much less "overhead" than MASM for small tasks. It is by far
the most powerful program that runs on MS-DOS.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com wrote:
Well, CP/M came with a good assembler, MS-DOS
didn't. That's where
I draw the line in my head.
PC-DOS is NOT the same as MS-DOS. Well, the OS is for all practical
purposes the same, but the marketing isn't. And THIS is a situation where
that matters. IBM chose to separate MASM out of PC-DOS. But MS-DOS was
"only available from the manufacturer of the computer" (Yeah, right.)
MASM was apparently available to the OEMs for inclusion or not as they saw
fit. Most of the high profile IBM wannabes, such as Compaq, followed
IBM's example and gouged you for it separately. But some chose to not do
an IBM, so some, like the Toshiba T300 included MASM as part of their
MS-DOS.
Or is this an issue of whether MASM is a good assembler? That one is
debatable. Before version 5.0 of MASM, it was severely lacking in
significant documentation components.
installed with some version of MS-BASIC, but I
(personally) don't
categorize that as a "real" development tool.
It's not bad as an end-user casual use tool, but it would be somewhat
demented (BTDT) to use it to build any commercial software.
In addition, it was about 10 years ago that IBM stopped including LINK (a
necessary tool for using compilers and assemblers). And, of course, using
LINK from an older version of DOS doesn't work due to the version
checking. The fix is trivial; just look through LINK.EXE for MOV AH,30h
INT 21h.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
2:45 p.m.
"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
In addition, it was about 10 years ago that IBM stopped including LINK (a
necessary tool for using compilers and assemblers). And, of course, using
LINK from an older version of DOS doesn't work due to the version
checking. The fix is trivial; just look through LINK.EXE for MOV AH,30h
INT 21h.
Hi
Someplace they dropped merge also. This is needed when
sorting files larger than 64K.
Dwight
9145
days inactive
9145
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com -
donm＠cts.com -
elvey＠hal.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
marvin＠rain.org