🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3213@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Now, I continue with:
>> > Programming on the ST is exactly like programming on the IBM-PC, except that
>> > there are fewer tools available, and more bugs to work around. After a couple
>> > of months of struggling the ST went into storage and I financed an Amiga.

I don't want to start a long debate becuase this has a lot to do with personal
prefereneces, but in this case I have to stick up for the ST.

I find I like developing on the ST *much* more than ugly IBM-PC's.   The
PC is a royal pain what with it's segments and 640K limitations and DOS memory
management problems etc. etc.   The ST has the nice 68000 CPU architecture,
lot's of RAM if you want, and a pretty good bunch of UNIX(tm)-like development
tools and reasonable C compilers and debuggers.   Many of the fancy PC
debuggers I've used (e.g. CodeView) are such memory hogs that you can't
use them to debug large applications on a 640K machine.  And credit Atari
becuase I think you get more done on the ST using "legitimate" techniques
(especially BIOS/XBIOS) system calls than on the PC where you find you
have to "cheat" a lot (although the PC has a lot "legitimate" ways to "cheat",
if that makes any sense).  Not to mention all the PC C compiler bugs...
-- 
David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.UUCP)	| "Lester Moore - Four slugs from a .44
Beckemeyer Development Tools		|  no Les, no more."
478 Santa Clara Ave. Oakland, CA 94610	|   - Headstone at Boot Hill
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david	|     Tombstone, AZ