Despite all minor software drawbacks the Amiga offered a great environment for programming. WB CLI was like shells of modern Linux. Arexx was like Perl or even Python. GUI was also quite good. One can only wonder why Commodore didn't follow Apple methods and didn't attack the IBM PC? Apple had worse hardware and software and was quite successful. Commodore instead made a big useless "toy" of the Amiga and offered the "serious" Commodore PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinsonb5
The point you're missing is that, provided the OS interfaces (i.e. timer.device and any other timing-related functions the operating system provides) do the right thing, what the OS does to the timer in the background is actually none of your business, or mine, or anyone else's. It can clear the counter ten times a second if it really wants to, provided the OS interfaces give correct results. It might be inconvenient, but it's not *wrong*.
If the OS does things to the hardware that you're not expecting, even if it's only one particular version of the OS, it's fine to say "This is really inconvenient" - but it's not fine to say "There's a bug in this version of the OS", because at no point did the OS ever promise not to do the thing that's annoying you!
|
You still missed the point. WB1.3 periodically clears the timer. WB3 doesn't do it. So it is not a necessity to clear the timer periodically. Maybe that zeroing was a hidden OS bug. Anyway WB3 shows us that actually system doesn't need to clear the timer periodically. So it was a minor drawback of old WB or maybe rather just a little quirk. I didn't call it a bug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar
Also, if you actually read up on how EXECUTE runs scripts in the full-length Amiga DOS manual, you'll see that there are ways to have the EXECUTE command do many of the things you might want to do with variables for you. I'm not sure if this info is also in the short-form manual, but check out pages 54 onwards from the Amiga DOS manual (1986, ISBN 0-553-34294-0) to see how you can do things like replacing parameters with defaults, etc.
|
WB didn't have variables until 1.3 and support for variables in WB 1.3 was very limited. EXECUTE variables are not variables but parameters. They are better than nothing but they are not normal variables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar
In other words: what you want to achieve is perfectly possible, but it doesn't work in the way you're used to, so it's wrong.
|
So you have eventually agreed with me.
Thank you.