Re: Programming PowerPC on Mac

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:20:02 GMT

Toby Thain wrote:
> Chewy509 wrote:
> > ... I know Apple makes up a very small market share (less
> > 5%), but if you want developers for your platform, you need to be as
open as
> > possible.
>
> But you *don't* need to teach them PowerPC assembly and how the ABI
> works at a low level!

Actually, there's a very good point there...

After all, Microsoft drown everyone in documentation...BUT where is their
documentation that teaches people x86 programming or how to call API at the
low-level? They _don't_ have any either! Everyone programs C, right?

The documentation about how to program Windows with assembly language was,
as Rene likes to put it, "pioneered" by _ordinary users_...if there's lots
of it, then that's because there are lots of x86 users out there willing to
"put in the work"...

Microsoft have no such documentation either...if you want to find
documentation about x86 assembly and how the ABI works, it's _Intel_ you
have to visit (indeed, it is even referred to as the "Intel ABI" in some
references I've seen...and this was, if I recall correctly, written _prior_
to the name change of x86 to "Intel Architecture" so must logically be
referring to the company and not to the CPU family)...

Yes, I've actually been a little dumb here, really, not to pick this up
myself, when, in fact, I'm personally working on sets of documentation for
Linux and X and such with LuxAsm...because, over on Linux, it's the same
thing again! There's nothing "official" only what ordinary developers (like
linuxassembly.org and such) do for themselves...

Indeed, working on LuxAsm, I can also report there's another factor
involved here: We've been _told off_ for promoting assembly language under
UNIX...told we _shouldn't_ do it because UNIX and X are all about
"portability" and "compatibility" so introducing assembly language to them
is a terrible "sin" and we should stop being "sinful"...and, indeed, when
people used to ask Microsoft how to program assembly language under
Windows, wasn't their response effectively: "It's impossible! You can't do
it! You shouldn't do it!" and such too?

So, yes, perhaps seeking such documentation from _Apple_ is the
mistake...Microsoft don't supply documentation at this level either...even
Linux is sparse on this stuff (but, due to "open source", you can always
find out how it works by going to look for yourself :)...rather, you go to
_Intel_ - the chip manufacturer - and they supply the x86 assembly language
documentation and details of the "Intel ABI"...

> In fact, Apple is very open and supportive of
> developers. They ship a world-class development system FREE with OS X
> (unlike most other vendors), including a wide range of tools and
> backed with a comprehensive online resource at
> http://developer.apple.com/ .

Mind you, with "open source" software, you get world-class systems FREE for
many platforms (GCC, for instance, supported practically anywhere and not
just "free of charge" but "free to look at the source code and change
things" and is a very flexible system because turning it into a
cross-compiler only requires the correct "binutils" for your target and
supports more than simply C++ alone...indeed, GCC's problem is perhaps that
it's sometimes leaning towards being _too_ "feature-packed" and not "UNIX
philosophy" enough of sticking to doing one job and doing it well...though,
it can be chopped down into a relatively "lean and mean" version...and it's
"world-class" because it is one of the better C compilers out there
:)...one range of vendors that are difficult to compete with on this would
be Linux distro vendors...have you seen the amount of software and
development systems you get with a typical bulky Linux distro? GCC, GAS,
Python, Perl, Java, Emacs, X, etc., etc....GBs of the stuff...not just free
but supplied with full source code...

No, not knocking Apple's support...just promoting Linux (hey, I'm on the
LuxAsm project! Of course I'm going to "plug" it ;) and pointing out that
it's NOT one of the "other vendors" you're saying doesn't do this...well, I
suppose because of the way Linux is, you might not be thinking of the Linux
distros as "vendors" in the same sense...but, really, they are...Red Hat is
a commercial vendor, just like the others...but, yeah, the "open source"
thing works differently so making "like for like" isn't quite possible...

> > I'll have a quick look at CodeWarrior and see what it offers.
> >
> > PS. No other Mac developers out there?
>
> comp.sys.mac.programmer.*

Yeah, looks like my "prediction" that, basically, the Mac developers have
simply vacated this newsgroup because of x86 dominance to their own
specific newsgroups was about right...makes logical sense...if you
developed for Mac, then would you hang around here where nothing but x86
programming is talked about 99% of the time? Only if you also developed for
PC too...

Plus, of course, one should distinguish that this group is about _assembly
language_...despite some talk of DOS or Windows API, that's a consequence
of assembly language having close interaction with OS API (difficult to
talk about a sequence of Windows assembly code without mentioning any API
;)...not that this is actually the topic of this newsgroup specifically...a
"secondary" topic that, by necessity, is often included but isn't itself
really what the group is about (but simply a case of "how do you talk of
one with the other sometimes needing to be mentioned too?")...mind you,
what am I talking about? This newsgroup has long since given up on having a
"topic" it follows, anyway!! ;)...

Beth :)

Quantcast