4 ms·

> Writing code on C64 is not like writing in a text editor or even like BASIC line numbers. You type your code directly into RAM and instructions are being asse

> Writing code on C64 is not like writing in a text editor or even like BASIC line numbers. You type your code directly into RAM and instructions are being assembled as you type Um, no. Maybe you do stuff like that. Most C64 devs used assemblers. We stored source on disk and ran assemblers on them. For the first C64 game I wrote [1] I actually used the Atari Macro assembler since it was pretty well made and supported relatively large programs. Then I'd transfer the result over to the C64 by the joystick ports with some custom cables and software I wrote. On the next big project we had dev environment that ran inside Super Text [2] on the Apple II and stored source on a networked Corvus HD. Pressing some combination of keys would start a compile directly from inside the editor. I don't remember how we transfer it. (getting old) [1] http://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/centipede_ http://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/centipede_ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse_Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse_Software

pjmlp 14y ago
Yeah, I was jealous of the professional developers. While I had to type everything by hand on the same computer, most companies (well game studios) were using those type of solutions.
- greggman 14y ago
  I don't think it was just "pros". I had assemblers during my high school years. In fact Atari shipped one as a cartridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Assembler_Editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Assembler_Editor With which I wrote several programs during my high school years. The thing that sucked about the Atari Assembler Editor is it worked like basic. Lines were numbered. You'd type LIST to see your program each line prefixed by a number. LIST 100-200 would list lines 100 to 200. Etc.. But you could renumber lines to insert stuff if you ran out of line numbers. That was replaced by the Atari Macro Assembler. http://www.mixinc.net/atari/amac.htm http://www.mixinc.net/atari/amac.htm Which I also had in my high school years before going pro. It was pretty similar to modern assemblers. I don't remember the price but I wasn't rich so it couldn't have been that expensive. It's possible I pirated the Atari Macro Assembler (thought I don't think so) but I couldn't have pirated the Atari Assembler Editor Cartridge :-)
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    There were also assemblers for the 48K, but they weren't that friendly to use, when compared with other systems. Many Pros used more powerfull systems and downloaded the code via the extension interface.
Joeboy 14y ago
>> You type your code directly into RAM and instructions are being assembled as you type > Most C64 devs used assemblers. We stored source on disk and ran assemblers on them. From my perspective, devs that were able to do that were extremely lucky. I gave up trying to program my (contemporaneous) ZX Spectrum in raw machine code with a tape deck for storage after one too many catastrophic failures, and I didn't take up programming again until ten years later when a friend donated me an old PC compatible. Edit: And yes, I'm still kind of bitter.
- winter_blue 14y ago
  That's kind-of sad to hear. I picked up programming when I was 8 on QBASIC, and absolutely loved it. 8-year old me would stay late nights till 3 a.m. programming. I have to admit, Microsoft got a lot of stuff right with the QBasic that was bundled with MS-DOS. Hitting F1 would bring up an amazing help system that documented various features of the language with code snippets. I remember discovering the "DRAW" command, and how much fun I had with it. I came across it on the documentation; and the code snippet is what made it really easy to learn how to use it. But the doc was well-written too -- sufficiently simple for an 8-year-old whose native language is not English, to understand. Now imagine that I had some *nix -- vi/emaccs alone would put me off, erm, any text editing, not to mention programming. Also, just the way Unix is, where things often break silently, and the system assumes you know what you're doing -- just isn't suited to an 8-year old. I'm kind-of disappointed at the state of programming right now. Many of the popular languages of today -- JS, Java, Obj-C, C++, etc. are no where as simple as the BASIC dialects are. Python though, is actually a good candidate. With a nice Turtle-like library, it would be a perfect beginner's intro language to programming!
  - ttuominen 14y ago
    PythonTurtle (haven't tried it though) https://github.com/cool-RR/PythonTurtle https://github.com/cool-RR/PythonTurtle
  - eru 14y ago
    You should try DrRacket. The book "How to design programs" uses it to get you straight into simple graphics. Both the book and DrRacket are available for free as in beer and speech online.
Luc 14y ago
I guess he just used what he had on hand. By the time the freeze cartridges were out, you could get pretty good native assemblers (like Ocean's Laser Genius, which can even be scripted in a sort of Forth dialect). Then you'd use the monitor on the freeze cartridge to debug the code generated by the assembler. I wrote many intros using the Power Cartridge monitor, before I learned about assemblers. For small projects it's fine!
eru 14y ago
Mostly assembly, yes. But there was also Forth available, a nice fit for those machines.

pjmlp 14y ago

Yeah, I was jealous of the professional developers. While I had to type everything by hand on the same computer, most companies (well game studios) were using those type of solutions.

greggman 14y ago
I don't think it was just "pros". I had assemblers during my high school years. In fact Atari shipped one as a cartridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Assembler_Editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Assembler_Editor With which I wrote several programs during my high school years. The thing that sucked about the Atari Assembler Editor is it worked like basic. Lines were numbered. You'd type LIST to see your program each line prefixed by a number. LIST 100-200 would list lines 100 to 200. Etc.. But you could renumber lines to insert stuff if you ran out of line numbers. That was replaced by the Atari Macro Assembler. http://www.mixinc.net/atari/amac.htm http://www.mixinc.net/atari/amac.htm Which I also had in my high school years before going pro. It was pretty similar to modern assemblers. I don't remember the price but I wasn't rich so it couldn't have been that expensive. It's possible I pirated the Atari Macro Assembler (thought I don't think so) but I couldn't have pirated the Atari Assembler Editor Cartridge :-)
- pjmlp 14y ago
  There were also assemblers for the 48K, but they weren't that friendly to use, when compared with other systems. Many Pros used more powerfull systems and downloaded the code via the extension interface.

Joeboy 14y ago

>> You type your code directly into RAM and instructions are being assembled as you type > Most C64 devs used assemblers. We stored source on disk and ran assemblers on them. From my perspective, devs that were able to do that were extremely lucky. I gave up trying to program my (contemporaneous) ZX Spectrum in raw machine code with a tape deck for storage after one too many catastrophic failures, and I didn't take up programming again until ten years later when a friend donated me an old PC compatible. Edit: And yes, I'm still kind of bitter.

winter_blue 14y ago
That's kind-of sad to hear. I picked up programming when I was 8 on QBASIC, and absolutely loved it. 8-year old me would stay late nights till 3 a.m. programming. I have to admit, Microsoft got a lot of stuff right with the QBasic that was bundled with MS-DOS. Hitting F1 would bring up an amazing help system that documented various features of the language with code snippets. I remember discovering the "DRAW" command, and how much fun I had with it. I came across it on the documentation; and the code snippet is what made it really easy to learn how to use it. But the doc was well-written too -- sufficiently simple for an 8-year-old whose native language is not English, to understand. Now imagine that I had some *nix -- vi/emaccs alone would put me off, erm, any text editing, not to mention programming. Also, just the way Unix is, where things often break silently, and the system assumes you know what you're doing -- just isn't suited to an 8-year old. I'm kind-of disappointed at the state of programming right now. Many of the popular languages of today -- JS, Java, Obj-C, C++, etc. are no where as simple as the BASIC dialects are. Python though, is actually a good candidate. With a nice Turtle-like library, it would be a perfect beginner's intro language to programming!
- ttuominen 14y ago
  PythonTurtle (haven't tried it though) https://github.com/cool-RR/PythonTurtle https://github.com/cool-RR/PythonTurtle
- eru 14y ago
  You should try DrRacket. The book "How to design programs" uses it to get you straight into simple graphics. Both the book and DrRacket are available for free as in beer and speech online.

Luc 14y ago

I guess he just used what he had on hand. By the time the freeze cartridges were out, you could get pretty good native assemblers (like Ocean's Laser Genius, which can even be scripted in a sort of Forth dialect). Then you'd use the monitor on the freeze cartridge to debug the code generated by the assembler. I wrote many intros using the Power Cartridge monitor, before I learned about assemblers. For small projects it's fine!

eru 14y ago

Mostly assembly, yes. But there was also Forth available, a nice fit for those machines.