On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Per Olofsson <magervalp@gmail.com> wrote: > As Ullrich said, ca65 is not a C64 assembler Sure, but do most users (or potential users) develop for multiple platforms, and is that their primary concern? Whatever system (or systems) I work with, I'm going to ultimately evaluate ca65 as an assembler for one particular system, at least at first. If it didn't seem to work well for my primary platform, I probably won't care too much about its other uses. > . . .using a single assembler source goes against the whole > point of having a linker. So, is the point of having a linker is to make things complicated, or is it to skillfully combine the various elements of your project into a usable final product? If all I have is a bit of code in a single file, should I go to a different tool? Keeping simple things simple is an important principle in software design. > ca65 is a powerful tool, and there's a bit of a learning curve, but it > really shines for larger projects (in fact nothing else comes close, > imho). For beginners I'd recommend (in no particular order) Turbo > Macro Pro, Acme, KickAssembler or DAsm. The audience I'm considering is someone like me who is well- versed in 6502 assembly and whatever their platform is, but who is new to the cc65 suite. I'd love to see more people use it, which is why I take interest in it becoming more approachable. So that's my motivation... I don't mean to criticize or expect everyone to see things my way, just hopefully understand my concern. :-) Documentation will fill the gap for the most part, so I'm starting there. // Agent Friday ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Wed Nov 3 20:39:13 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-11-03 20:39:16 CET