| |
Optimus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 122 |
C64 crossdeveloping suggestions?
Yep. I am motivated to start coding something on the C64 again. I need to use some helpful tools that will speed up developing and make things less frustrating. I am searching for crossdeveloping tools on the C64.
I am already considering kick assembler. But I might want to hear more suggestions. Btw,. is there a C64 emulator coming with internal assembler? Something like the thing I use on CPC, the Winape32 emulator/assembler? That would be great! |
|
... 66 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
Zone: Actually you don't have to add fill = yes unless you're dealing with multiple memory area definitions. I've found that practice to be a bit overused; most of the time you can deal just fine with having a single memory area, "RAM", and then using the "start = $address" attribute for your segments as needed. |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1990 |
Quote: Zone: Actually you don't have to add fill = yes unless you're dealing with multiple memory area definitions. I've found that practice to be a bit overused; most of the time you can deal just fine with having a single memory area, "RAM", and then using the "start = $address" attribute for your segments as needed.
@radiantx: that's what I do aswell unless I have code that is loaded at one place and run at another. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5025 |
many assemblers are only good to make your code look like a highly scientifical unreadable c sources. if you're a beginner go for 64tass, there you can just do stuff which will simply work, instead of spending a week to get a screen clr routine working. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11137 |
what oswald123 said \o/ |
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
Quoting Oswaldmany assemblers are only good to make your code look like a highly scientifical unreadable c sources
Not all of us find "highly scientifical c sources" unreadable you know. :-) There's a point to all the metacode, though it may not be obvious at first. |
| |
Testa
Account closed
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 197 |
what oswald said:
i go for:
ultraedit
64tass
vice
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5025 |
Quote: Quoting Oswaldmany assemblers are only good to make your code look like a highly scientifical unreadable c sources
Not all of us find "highly scientifical c sources" unreadable you know. :-) There's a point to all the metacode, though it may not be obvious at first.
beginners shouldnt be advised to use assemblers where even putting the code to a specified address needs days of learning, and unnecessary complexity. and as it shows there's confusion even amongst who use these assemblers (fill vs no fill) |
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
Oswald: No confusion, just different ways of doing things, with different sets of advantages and disadvantages. It is very true though that for someone who is just learning to code ca65 is a bad choice, but I haven't gotten the impression that Optimus belongs in that category. As for the complexity it sure is there, but as already stated it is only unnecessary if you don't utilize the functionality it brings. |
| |
Dbug
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 5 |
Somebody mentioned xa65, it's also what I'm using.
Would be nice to find some kind of comparative table showing the various features of the various assemblers (support for "extra" opcodes, 6502/65c02/65816/variants, conditional assembly, macros, includes, etc...) because I really have no idea of how XA compares to KickAss, or how KickAss compares to CA65 or Acme :-/
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5025 |
so is it possible to compile sources without the linker and the awkward segments ? dont think so. ca65 is also a bad choice for one who is not familiar with c compilers. imho its a huge overkill and gives an unnecessary complexity for the average c64 project. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Next |
