5 ms·
Yep. I had an Amiga and learnt to code in Basic on it. But anything beyond that was so much harder than it is today. Sure, there was a GNU C-Compiler for the
by sien 5y ago
Yep.
I had an Amiga and learnt to code in Basic on it. But anything beyond that was so much harder than it is today.
Sure, there was a GNU C-Compiler for the Amiga, but in the 1980s people didn't know about those things because so few people had internet access.
Today if you're a bright kid and want to learn coding there are so many resources and free languages.
Of course the distractions are much better too really.
- KerrAvon 5y agoGCC must also have been painfully slow on Amiga hardware compared with other available C compilers?
- ChainOfFools 5y agothe only other option IIRC was Lattice C, and that was painfully slow as well. there's only so much 7.16 mhz can do.
- squarefoot 5y agoI seem to recall that Dice-C was faster than Lattice/SAS. If C compatibility wasn't required, then Amiga-E was possibly the best option if one wanted a (very) fast compiler paired with a high lever powerful language. https://strlen.com/amiga-e/ https://strlen.com/amiga-e/
- butlerm 5y agoAztec C was a commercially available, and very popular, C compiler available for the Amiga at the time. And for any reasonable size program, it was fast enough. I worked on one unusually large program for the comparable Atari ST that took about half an hour to build. Most "normal" programs compiled a lot faster.
- flohofwoe 5y agoDICE C by Matt Dillon (of DragonFly BSD fame) was a great low-cost option for C coding on the Amiga.
- zeroc8 5y agoC was a pain in the ass, at least for those like me who only had one disk drive. That's why assembly language was the natural progression from Basic back then.