on 7/31/01 3:01 PM, Andreas Marcel Riechert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bruce Van Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> At 8:22 AM +0200 7/31/01, Peter Hartmann wrote:
>>> Anyway, to take a bit of time to provide a final MacPerl 68k access page in
>>> my opinion is much better than to make Chris e. al. go thru all the hassle
>>> of providing support for all kinds of antique systems and hardware.
>>
>> Excellent idea!
>
> Yes, a very good idea.
I also think this is an excellent idea.
>
> Anyway I think it is quit sad dropping 68k MacPerl development, but
> this feelings are emotional but not rational ;-)
I think it is sad too. The one thing that I have used on every
mac I ever owned from my IIcx to my current 6500 is macperl.
> If there are a lot of hassles to support 68k I would say, lets drop
> 68k MacPerl.
> I wonder which problems Chris faces.
The mac toolbox evolved making life easier for developers. Much of these
improvements are only for the PowerPC versions later than MacOS 7.6 . Apple
pretty much pulled the plug for 68k after 7.6.1. Memory management has
vastly improved under the newer OSes and on PowerPC in general.Also
Debugging 68k code on a powerpc is generally not a fun thing. This is just
my opinion (semi-educated guess), and I am no expert.
> I did some testing on a SE/30
> and it didn't look too bad. If it is just a GUI thing -- which seems
> IMHO one of the main problems to solve before we get a beta release
> -- we could drop the 68k Application, but I don't see any reason for
> dropping the 68k MPW-tool. Toolserver + 68k tool is still a powerfull
> combination. So if it is possible to develop the 68k tool without too
> much extra work for Chris, dropping the application but not the tool
> seems to be a good way to go.
I think this is a worthwhile suggestion since a MPW tool would
be much easier to support than the app. It would also be able to run
on a variety of legacy systems with MPW (at least 7.5/7.6 with minimal
effort.
To finish, my ("Dangerously low caffiene") thought the other night about
library support (Static vs. Dynamic). I think that a 68k would probably have
to implement static libraries as Dynamic 68k "cfm68k" support was always
experimental ,and I doubt that Chris would want to spend much time on this.
Static would be the way to go.
Feeling nostalgic, I fired up my Quadra 650 , and did some experimenting and
testing in MPW with perl 5.20r4 (using only static libraries) ,and perl
5.6.1a4. the mpw tool for 5.6.1a4 worked rather well (considering my Quadra
has 128mb of ram w/ 100mb allocated to MPW).
Regards,
--
Chad A. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#124010854
