From: guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon)
Subject: Re: 3D game engine for PB?
 
In article , gturgeon@meol.mass.edu (Gregoire 
Turgeon) wrote:
>
>On 8 May 1998 15:32:28 GMT, guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
>
>>
>>My situation is that I do everything in PBasic (for the Basic Stamp) or
>>PowerBasic (for the PC) with an ocasional dive into a short loop using
>>inline assembler when PB doesn't do exactly what I want.  All of this
>>is professional (programming robotics and CD/DVD palyers) with no limit
>>on money spent on hardware or software.  Would you still recomend TASM
>>for my situation?
>
>If you're a professional programmer, you appreciate certain qualities
>that obviously have limited appeal in some circles. One of these
>qualities involves working within accepted standards.  I've used TASM
>for 386-specific code under PowerBASIC, all the way back to the 3.0a
>release.  The TASM/PB interface, although not seamless, has always
>been manageable for my purposes (mainly VGA programming, encryption,
>and compression).  Sample code also exists.
>
>Debate over assemblers often becomes rather amusing.  Paying your
>bills never is.  I've experimented with the freeware NASM and am
>delighted that it exists.  It offers several interesting innovations.
>Its syntax, etc. also deviate widely from the standard created by, and
>still set by, MASM.  Like it or not, if you're writing for an
>increasingly  Windows world, Microsoft tools set the standards.  Other
>tool makers conform, willingly or unwillingly, or they remain minor
>players.
>
>Of course, if Microsoft operating systems mean little to your income
>as a programmer, then many things are possible.  And sometimes lots
>more fun, too.
>
>MASM is available not only retail but also through the (big dollar)
>Microsoft Developer Network professional subscription.  That of course
>doesn't necessarily mean that all subscribers actually prefer it or
>even use it, but if they look for an alternative to MASM, such people
>rarely rely on impressions and anecdotal evidence when weighing
>possibilities.
 
I have a subscription to the Developer Network, but the C programmers
in my dept. use it a lot more than I do.  I am a hardware expert, and
I do simple coding only (moving a robot arm, testing a CD for flatness,
that sort of thing).  I find PB to be just about perfect for this
sort of work.  My question is what to do when I need to put a little
bit of assembly language code in a PB program.  Is my best choice to
just ignore all assemblers and do it in inline code from the PB
environment?  That's what I do now, despite access to any assembler
I want to use.  Would I be better off using a "real" assembler?
Remember, we are talking about very small and tight Assembly Language
loops embedded in a PowerBasic program.
 
*** QwkNews (tm) v2.1
 * [TN71] alt.lang.powerbasic  POWER_BAS Gateway
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
---------------