Re: Is it too hard to program for the Apple?

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

D Finnigan wrote:
> D Finnigan wrote:
>
> > > But just because during this 4-
> > > day stint on c.s.a2** no one came up with the Next Killer App(tm), I
> > > don't think it's time to throw in the towel.  
> >
> > And I didn't expect anyone to come up with something, nor am I throwing in
> > the towel. I'm just starting some threads about stuff which I have on my
> > mind.
>
>
> And to add one more thing, because this just occurred to me-- I hope that no
> one is misinterpreting this thread as me bashing the Apple II community for
> being lazy fogies because the system is too hard to program.

Not at all...  Though I find it to be extremely easy to program.

The difficulty of programming has nothing to do with tools, but
everything to do with mastering design complexity.  And, yes, I
know that there are tools to help with that, but the human mind is
the finest, most versatile tool we have, and we all have it!

If the mechanics of writing and testing a program on the Apple II
slow us down a bit, that is a bonus.  There is no program that would
not be improved by taking twice as long to think about it--perhaps
while doing something trivial and repetitive, like text editing or
reading a memory dump.

Programming and design are arts and crafts, not much advanced by
the use of general-purpose power tools.  ;-)  Most tools only speed
up the "legwork", not the thinking, and too many become so fascinated
with recompiling and linking that they quit the inspiration/thinking
part of the job!  ;-)

Some of the best and most disciplined programs I ever wrote came about
at least partly because I only had access to a machine for brief
periods once a week!

Integer BASIC was hand-assembled and keyed in by Woz before each use!

Dijkstra considered interactive programming to be about as sensible
as improvisational brain surgery.  ;-)

> What I meant for it to be was just another survey thread, because I was
> curious about what the Apple II community had to say on programming for the
> Apple II. Do they themselves feel that it could be easier? Are they
> satisfied with available tools and such? Etc.... That's all.

As you can guess, I'm pretty satisfied with the convenience of the
existing crop of tools.  Any dissatisfaction I have would be with
their scope--such as support for parallel processing.

At this stage in its life, the Apple II isn't going to host any
user-grabbing apps, but it remains one of the most effective
machines ever made for learning about programming and algorithms.

It would be great to extend its scope to permit learning about
even wider ranges of programming issues--assuming anyone is still
interested in using Apple II's to learn.

-michael

NadaNet and AppleCrate II: parallel computing for Apple II computers!
Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."