🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1125@crash.cts.com> doc@crash.cts.com (Mitch Evans) writes:
>
>	Is C fast enough to write a BBS program in?  I have seen Pro BBS
>(the source is public domain), and the author says that it is unacceptably
>slow.  Is this because of his style, or because of the language.

Yes, it is. However since a BBS program is merely a set of menus which then
execute a set of scripts, it is much preferable to write it in AREXX. A BBS
is only a shell, therefore use a shell scripting language to write one in.

If Pro BBS is too slow, that is because it is badly designed. Attach a terminal
to the serial port and open a CLI shell through AUX:. Is it too slow? of course
not! Now write a compact BBS in the AmigaDOS scripting language. Is it too
slow? Of course not! Now write a fully featured BBS in AREXX. Did it take more
than a week? Of course not!

The neat thing is that if you write a BBS in AREXX, you do not have to write
special code to allow the buyer to reconfigure menus. He can modify the source
code himself.

>	How do I include assembly code in-line in Manx C.  My trials have been
>failures.  How do I address the C variables from the assembly portion.  Any
>comments or examples would be very much appreciated.  THANKS!

It's in the manual. I believe Aztec Inca Manx 5.0 is about to ship, if not
already shipping. There are example programs on the fish disks which use inline
assembler in Manx C. That is considered bad programming style however. You
should write separate modules enirely in assembler instead.

Valentin
-- 
The Goddess of democracy? "The tyrants     Name:    Valentin Pepelea
may distroy a statue,  but they cannot     Phone:   (215) 431-9327
kill a god."                               UseNet:  cbmvax!valentin@uunet.uu.net
             - Ancient Chinese Proverb     Claimer: I not Commodore spokesman be