AMOS vs. Blitz BASIC II
nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us
What's better, Blitz BASIC II or AMOS PRO? I want to buy a language
to make games...and eventually other stuff... but primarily games. I've seen
a lot of AMOS programs and it seems like a very powerful language (I have
the Amiga Format Coverdisk 1.3 edition...but it won't run on my 4000...and
I can't get the 1.7 extensions to work so I can run it on my 4000...anyone
care to help me out?)... I've seen ONE Blitz Basic I game and it was pretty
good too (Defenda)...nice copper background, good scrolling, smooth movement,
etc... So which one should I blow my $120 on?
AMOS PRO doesn't support AGA yet and Blitz BASIC II does right?
--
Ralph A.Barbagallo III_Only AMIGA Makes it Possible!_nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us
[ Amiga 4000/030, Amiga 500, Commodore 64, Atari 800XL, Atari 2600, 7800, ]
[ Lynx, Sega Master System, Genesis, Game Gear, NES, SNES, Game Boy, NEO GEO]
[ TurboGrafx-16/CDROM, Odyssey 500, ColecoVision, Vectrex-BOB LOVES YOU !!!!]
David Higginson
I believe that an update to AMOS Pro is either imminent, or already released that
allows AGA screen modes to be used. Amiga Shopper quoted Europress as saying that
256-colour screens would definitely be possible, but weren't sure about HAM8 as
yet. Given the length of time between magazine deadlines and hitting the presses,
that version is probably already out.
Hawkins Kirk
I used Blitz Basic I when it came out a couple of years ago. Though it was
incomplete, I didn't have much difficulty in using its machine-language hooks
to extend it anywhere that I wanted to. Consequently, I wrote several real-time
interactive 3-D (with glasses) simulators - particle/quantum-physics, nonlinear
dynamics and flows, and molecular modelling - with all of the post calc-level
math, for use in the senior and graduate classes here.
I've used AMOS. I wanted to see if it was as good as people were raving about
it. Well, people rave about IBM's. When I converted my simulations from Blitz-I
into AMOS it was a major disappointment to see what had been a nice interactive
3-D system turn into sludge.... the action, when compiled(!), was so dang slow
that it wasn't even worth the attempt. Beyond this, the AMOS interrupt routines
were screwed up, so this required a major laborious code-hack to get the 3-D
glasses to work.... which amounted to shutting down AMOS, therefore defeating
the purpose of using it in the first place.
So, AMOS might be a good start if you are a non-programmer and don't have high
ambitions and you'll stay that way.
But if you're a creative type, then I'd say go with Blitz.
I found AMOS was always *painfully* slow compared to what it should have been
doing (how does molasses flow in winter-time?).
Even worse, AMOS generally has left my machines in weird internal states of
some non-precise nature, with crashes happening afterwards along the ways...
so clean-out re-booting was required to do anything safely afterwards. This
isn't a major problem if all that you're doing is AMOS stuff. But it shouldn't
be that way anyways for a product that's supposed to be so mature.
I'm with Blitz II now, since I gave up on AMOS for its lack of speed.
Current developments involve extending my old Blitz-I simulations into DCTV
displays (with the speed maintained - using my own proprietary library
routines). What I especially like about Blitz-II is its "in-line assembler";
you type in assembly language just like regular language (being careful of
course), and it'll even trap out a fair number of gurus for you. That's a good
way to do development. Saves the hassle of re-booting (woes of AMOS return to
mind...).
To summarize my experience:
- AMOS couldn't handle my simulations, but Blitz does it fine.
- Blitz is the next best thing to working directly in speed-code assembly
language. Besides, assembly is built in, if you are daring enough.
- AMOS = boring.
- Blitz = excitement!
-Hawkins
Tjark Kalow
> I used Blitz Basic I when it came out a couple of years ago. Though it was
> incomplete, I didn't have much difficulty in using its machine-language hooks
> to extend it anywhere that I wanted to. Consequently, I wrote several real-time
> interactive 3-D (with glasses) simulators - particle/quantum-physics, nonlinear
> dynamics and flows, and molecular modelling - with all of the post calc-level
> math, for use in the senior and graduate classes here.
>
So you used Blitz's machine-language hooks...
> So, AMOS might be a good start if you are a non-programmer and don't have high
> ambitions and you'll stay that way.
Yeah, why should you use over the 700 commands? Stay with GOTO,
if you're a beginner! AMOS offers a big variety of commands!
> But if you're a creative type, then I'd say go with Blitz.
I'd say go with AMOS.
> I found AMOS was always *painfully* slow compared to what it should have been
> doing (how does molasses flow in winter-time?).
What have you done to slow it down? I find it hard to do so!
> Even worse, AMOS generally has left my machines in weird internal states of
> some non-precise nature, with crashes happening afterwards along the ways...
> so clean-out re-booting was required to do anything safely afterwards. This
> isn't a major problem if all that you're doing is AMOS stuff. But it
You said you hacked around. No wonder ot crashes.
> routines). What I especially like about Blitz-II is its "in-line assembler";
> you type in assembly language just like regular language (being careful of
> course), and it'll even trap out a fair number of gurus for you.
AMOS offers a similar possibility.
> To summarize my experience:
> - AMOS couldn't handle my simulations, but Blitz does it fine.
If you didn't use the AMOS machine-language hooks, who are detailly
decribed in the Pro Manual, then you shouldn't wonder about that!
> - AMOS = boring.
> - Blitz = excitement!
Now that's what I call an argument...
Greetings,
Tjark
--
This is a typical case, whom we shall refer to as Mr. A, although
his real name is this:
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Name: Tjark Kalow E-Mail: tj...@uni-paderborn.de
Address: Thorenknick 6
33100 Paderborn
Country: Germany
Tel.: 0 52 52 / 39 12 (phone answering system)
Computer: AMIGA 500 KS1.2 1MB w. 2 drives
Occupation: Student
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Hawkins Kirk
> In article <22mhs7$g...@nic.umass.edu> ALA...@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU (Hawkins Kirk) writes:
>
>
> > I used Blitz Basic I when it came out a couple of years ago. Though it was
> > incomplete, I didn't have much difficulty in using its machine-language hooks
> > to extend it anywhere that I wanted to. Consequently, I wrote several real-time
> > interactive 3-D (with glasses) simulators - particle/quantum-physics, nonlinear
> > dynamics and flows, and molecular modelling - with all of the post calc-level
> > math, for use in the senior and graduate classes here.
> >
>
> So you used Blitz's machine-language hooks...
Yes, I did.
The quantum videos were shown in Washington D.C. at the National Education
Administration. Funding was allocated based on that. The students here refer to
the stuff as a "must see".
> > So, AMOS might be a good start if you are a non-programmer and don't have high
> > ambitions and you'll stay that way.
>
> Yeah, why should you use over the 700 commands? Stay with GOTO,
> if you're a beginner! AMOS offers a big variety of commands!
>
> > But if you're a creative type, then I'd say go with Blitz.
>
> I'd say go with AMOS.
You can have it your way.
The AMOS I have (from 3 months ago for my last update) didn't solve its
problems. I've had it for well over a year.
Have you done any real-time interactive 3-D simulations with AMOS?
(How creative are you, really?)
(You can go ahead and count how many commands there are, but they'd better work
right and work fast. Meanwhile, the "Every-On" command in AMOS was an important
command that was badly broken. That is well known and documented. See below.)
> > I found AMOS was always *painfully* slow compared to what it should have been
> > doing (how does molasses flow in winter-time?).
>
> What have you done to slow it down? I find it hard to do so!
A major flaw with AMOS, as has been well documented on the nets, and was an
issue between me an AMOS technical support for over 7 months (until I gave up
with it) is the AMOS vertical blank interrupt server:
It was stupid for the AMOS "Every-On" vertical-blank interrupt server
to constantly unload itself so that it was required to be re-loaded. What a
waste of time! If I wanted it unloaded then I should be allowed to tell it so.
When doing 3-D glasses, you are supposed to be able to spend your time
evolving the display. But AMOS was digging through its own mountains of
internal code to keep re-doing its interrupt server. Beyond that, it wasn't
stable in its timing.
The essential code for working with the 3-D glasses is to flip screens and
toggle a bit in the cia chip to switch the state of the 3-D glasses.
AMOS screen flipping is okay by itself.
Poking a byte into the cia chip doesn't take long either.
---
But, doing both of these with the AMOS interrupt server didn't work well at
all.... because the AMOS routines have a huge time-overhead built in, along
with a lousy priority scheme for the list linkage.
If you didn't do any key or mouse action then it would be _almost_ stable.
But as soon as you'd try being interactive, like rotating a 3-D molecule image
by just sliding the mouse, then AMOS would screw up the timing so that it was
unwatchable --- flickering, freezing, and even getting the relative
synchronization backwards! Also, as soon as you try to make something evolve,
like simply moving the position of an atom relative to the others, then
AMOS would lose hold of the picture timing.
AMOS technical support confirmed the problem too, and they were unable to fix
it.
So, AMOS definitely could not handle 3-D, especially if it was interactive.
Meanwhile, Blitz would just swap the bitplane pointers, and poke the state
bits to toggle the glasses. That is a lot faster than AMOS's *freighting*
around a whole interrupt-server block in-and-out of the server chain every
time it is called.
Machine code is used for doing fast complex functions for simulating the
physics/chemistry or whatever, which comes _after_ being able to do the 3-D
in the first place.
So, with only a screen-flip and a single-byte poke to ask for, don't tell me
that I was doing something that should cause a slow down. The problem was AMOS;
it was doing it to itself with all that stupid interrupt server re-allocation!
Beyond this, my perspective about speed comes from this background:
I know the cpu, the instruction timings, bus cycles, etc., hardware,
software, silicon, as far down as you care to go;... designed, repaired,
reverse-engineered, troubleshooted and consulted-for....
I've been doing speed-optimized assembly language for 14 years.
I use Blitz so that the older professors can read a version of Basic.
- Do you program in speed-optimized assembly language so that you have a good
perspective on how *slow* AMOS is?
- Do you know of any AMOS quantum-physics or magnetohydrodynamics programs?
If so, then I'll be glad to see a speed comparison.
> > Even worse, AMOS generally has left my machines in weird internal states of
> > some non-precise nature, with crashes happening afterwards along the ways...
> > so clean-out re-booting was required to do anything safely afterwards. This
> > isn't a major problem if all that you're doing is AMOS stuff. But it
>
> You said you hacked around. No wonder ot crashes.
^
Notice: you are crashing................^
You also failed to check my justification before attacking. That's a mistake.
So, cut the crap, and pay attention.
I don't make such claims without already having the proof.
The homework that I did before you picked this fight was:
- AMOS's OWN supplied demo programs left the machine unstable, crashing after
several loads, especially when dealing with the multiple resident program
buffer.
- The AMOS compiled code would routinely crash.
- The compiler itself would crash, depending on the program it was parsing.
- The compiler even corrupted disks that it was saving compiled programs to.
> > routines). What I especially like about Blitz-II is its "in-line assembler";
> > you type in assembly language just like regular language (being careful of
> > course), and it'll even trap out a fair number of gurus for you.
>
> AMOS offers a similar possibility.
Good. But it has certainly been a long enough wait. And whatever happened to
that stuff about granting AMOS source-code to interested programmers? I would
have been glad to help. But my queries went unanswered.
> > To summarize my experience:
> > - AMOS couldn't handle my simulations, but Blitz does it fine.
> If you didn't use the AMOS machine-language hooks, who are detailly
> decribed in the Pro Manual, then you shouldn't wonder about that!
^
Notice: your brain is crashing, again...............................^
Excuse me, but Pro didn't exist at the time, and the major failure of AMOS was
in being unable to perform 3-D screen-flipping due to the flaw in its interrupt
server routine. With this problem, then, it didn't matter how slow AMOS was.
Beyond that, I was told by an AMOS-Pro user that the root of the interrupt
server problem still wasn't fixed in the Pro version either.
Meanwhile, Blitz did screen-flipping flawlessly via interrupt server. Blitz
was doing it right two years before I got AMOS which did it wrong.
The machine code ability of Blitz is irrelevant to this.
Want more? How about the lack of 32-bit fracteger representation in AMOS.
Oh, sure, go ahead and ***SLOW*** _floating point_ routines to handle the
decimal fractions which come from doing rotation matrices. Yeah, and then
hassle with float*integer conversion delays, where the integers are used for
speedy coordinates in the vector space. Get a cramp typing in #'s for floating
point numbers too.... Nope, AMOS's numeric representation scheme was not
designed for speedy 3-D simulation work.
> > - AMOS = boring.
> > - Blitz = excitement!
>
> Now that's what I call an argument...
Now you are boring me.
I don't have any more time for this, except for one important note:
***
I do deeply admire what Francois Lionet set out to do. I'd say that he was
quite largely successful.
But the Amiga has had a problem around the world being taken as anything other
than game machine. My work with it involves using it as a scientific imaging
tool where some of the most sophisticated mathematics is required for
visualization --- the whole point being to CONVEY the ideas into the mind of
the viewer.
The difficulties that I experienced with AMOS being unable to 1) handle 3-D
glasses, and 2) its overall slowness were critical factors that made it
unusable; especially in comparison to standards that had been easily achieved
2 years earlier.
I spent over half a year probing AMOS technical support to get the interrupt
problem solved. The _little_ extra ability of AMOS shouldn't have been too much
to ask for.
Nevertheless, having hope for it during this time, I bought AMOS's as gifts for
several friends, including my mom. It was a good package for their level of
knowledge. However, a few _days_ later I saw AMOS-Pro being advertised. Why
didn't the tech support mention it so that I could have purchased AMOS-Pro
packages instead? Since it was available _way_ before I saw the ads, and since
it just may have been enough of an improvement to adequately get around the
problems with the lesser version, then why wasn't I told?
Well. Too bad.
It would be nice to see a 3-D working version of AMOS that was also fast.
But time ran out for AMOS. What needed in AMOS was what existed in Blitz over 3
years ago. I've spent enough money and gotten inadequate results from AMOS
for the performance level that I need. I still recommend it, though, for the
common simple folk.
> Greetings,
> Tjark
> --
> This is a typical case, whom we shall refer to as Mr. A, although
> his real name is this:
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> Name: Tjark Kalow E-Mail: tj...@uni-paderborn.de
> Address: Thorenknick 6
> 33100 Paderborn
> Country: Germany
> Tel.: 0 52 52 / 39 12 (phone answering system)
> Computer: AMIGA 500 KS1.2 1MB w. 2 drives
> Occupation: Student
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
-Hawkins Kirk (High power/High frequency Electrophysics)
UMASS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
and Associate Director of the Planetarium facility at SUNY New Paltz
Sam Taylor
My vote is "Blitz Basic II" any day. It has so many advantages
over AMOS it ain't funny - but the principle advantages are:
(i) SPEED - I don't have any figures, but Blitz code
compiles to much faster executables
(ii) LANGUAGE - Althought Blitz is superficially a version
of Basic, there are also a great many
extensions to the "normal" basic language.
In particular it has really good support
for pointers and dynamic structures, and
it also has records ... essentially you can
almost programme the language as C.
(iii) ASSEMBLY - The language has great in-line assembly
options.
(iv) OS SUPPORT - Blitz provides full support for the Amiga OS
and lets you access Intuition and the full
compliment of Amiga libraries. If you need
speed though, you can drop into BLITZ mode
which kills the OS and gives you total
control.
Go for Blitz - I did and I haven't regretted it for one moment.
-SAM-
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| /| "I'm sinking in the quicksand of my thoughts, |
| /|| And I ain't got the power any more..." - DAVID BOWIE |
| / || |
| /--|| Sam Taylor |
| _/ _||_ tays...@mehta.anu.edu.au |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ben Campbell
Blitz II and have done quite a bit of programming with both of them.
Here are some comparisons:
Speed - Blitz is a _lot_ faster than AMOS (even compiled AMOS). I'd
say that this is because it was designed as a compiled language right
from the beginning, not interpreted like AMOS. AMOS always leaves
multitasking running, while Blitz gives you the option of killing it
completely for that extra kick of speed. Also, it is really easy
to use inline assembly code in Blitz, for those time-critical routines.
I found trying to use asm in AMOS was a complete bottomer.
Oh yeah, Blitz slows down with runtime error checking left on.
My advice - get rid of all the bugs and then disable it.
Ease of Use - No competition here. AMOS is easier to use. I found
Blitz quite hard to get to grips with at first, but after a bit of
practice things get a lot easier. I think the reason is that Blitz
doesn't make so many assumptions - ie you have to set things up for
yourself while AMOS provides defaults. Also, AMOS does a lot of things
for you, while Blitz makes you do them yourself (Bobs for example).
This makes Blitz a bit more flexible and efficient, but it can get a
bit daunting for a beginner.
Because AMOS has been out longer, there is more help availible for it
(like columns in magazines, etc...)
System-friendlyness - AMOS always multitasks, but sets up its own View
so you can't really use intuition stuff. Blitz runs in two modes - you
can either leave the system in or kill it completely and bang on the
hardware. Programs can switch the system in and out at will.
Calling system libraries from AMOS is not a lot of fun. You have to
provide the library function offset and nasty stuff like that.
Blitz on the other hand integrates all library functions as if they
were BASIC commands. It comes with all the 3.0 functions defined and
has utilities to add any other libraries you may have.
If you're going to write anything like, say, a utility which pops up
on workbench or a custom screen then go for Blitz - I can't see any
reasonable way to do this in AMOS.
Structure - Thankfully neither language requires you to use line numbers.
Both have the standard sort of REPEAT/UNTIL/WHILE/WEND loops,as well as
IF-THEN...ELSE...ENDIF statement blocks. AMOS however has an annoying
quirk in that if you have a IF-THEN-ENDIF block, it won't let you have
a single-line IF-THEN inside it - it forces you to nest another
IF-THEN...ENDIF structure. Hopefully AMOS Pro will have fixed this.
Returning values from functions in AMOS is also a bit annoying - you have
to return the value in PARAM, or PARAM$. But one of my favourite things
about Blitz is the way it handles data structures (which AMOS can't do).
Conclusions:
Well, it is pretty obvious that I prefer Blitz - It is simply more
powerful and faster. However, be warned that it could be a bit daunting
for a newcomer to programming. AMOS does a lot more hand-holding and
provides a good safety net for the beginner.
An AMOS program will always look (feel) like an AMOS program (mainly
because of the way it sets up its own View), while Blitz programs could
pass for C or assembler.
These are of course my opinions - please don't get out the flamethrower
just because your opinions differ. It's not supposed to be a
comprehensive review.
Disclaimer: "It wasn't me! Really, I'm innocent! I was on the other side
of town! Honest!"
Sorry about the longish post...
B...@l42south.equinox.gen.nz
--
"Big Time TV - the channel where two's company and three's an audience."
- Max
M Cox
: Notice: you are crashing................^
: > decribed in the Pro Manual, then you shouldn't wonder about that!
: Notice: your brain is crashing, again...............................^
And only an ass will pick on someone's spelling in a debate.
: UMASS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
^^^^^ Ahhh, that explains it . . .
Mike
Hawkins Kirk
> Hawkins Kirk (ALA...@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU) wrote:
> : Notice: you are crashing................^
> : > decribed in the Pro Manual, then you shouldn't wonder about that!
> : Notice: your brain is crashing, again...............................^
> And only an ass will pick on someone's spelling in a debate.
So you want to loft profanities?
How about:(think about how _this_ sounds)
mc...@access.digex.net....
_you're making a yummy noise?
|
| _about you're favorite subject?
| |
v v
mcox = <your-what/how-many> = .... tools ....
@access = <wants what+where> = .... at the entry-way ....
digex.net = <what/how far> = .... digestive network ....
In this connection then:
Cut the crap Mike.
(pun intended)
-----
As for people who exhibit poor spelling, they also tend to be generally
inconsiderate, unobservant, and they maintain a disregard for the truth.
For the record, I screw up too; but I'd expect high-school so-called
"graduates" to at least be better than my peers were when we were in 5th grade!
Oh well. So bad spelling is OK for you. You accept the flunky mentality.
Fine. Have it your way. Go back to the stone age.
By design, the dumbing-down advocates will extinguish themselves.
> : UMASS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
> ^^^^^ Ahhh, that explains it . . .
>
> Mike
Yup, the efforts to 1) achieve excellence and 2) to not tolerate blatant idiocy
are well established here - where you are not.
-Hawkins
MATTHEW D SCHMILL
>> And only an ass will pick on someone's spelling in a debate.
>Oh well. So bad spelling is OK for you. You accept the flunky mentality.
>> : UMASS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
>> ^^^^^ Ahhh, that explains it . . .
Save it guys. Bring you idiotic name-slinging debates to EMail or
something. This is a programming newsgroup which many people pay money
to get, etc. If I see an article with an AMOS header, I want to find
out about AMOS, not what two presumably grown adults can dig up in the
way of insults.
Matt Schmill,
UMass EKSL/CompSci undergrad
Ralph Barbagallo
Hmmmmm....well, does Blitz BASIC II have good documentations? I'm
not much of an Assembly programmer (I learned a bit of C64 6502 but when I
got my Amiga I just dropped it)...so is it still easy to use among non
assembly-mad-dogs? I've been recently plugging around with my AMOS 1.3
version (got it to work on my 4000) and it seems pretty cool... although
I haven't tried any ambitious stuff on it, it does seem adequate. I think
I am going to hold off on AMOS PRO until I master this regular AMOS here.
My main problem with Blitz BASIC II is the lack of tutorials in books etc.
So what's the scoop? Are there good instructions bundled with it, or are
there books somewhere that can help me out?
--
Ralph A.Barbagallo III_Only AMIGA Makes it Possible!_nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us
[ Amiga 4000/030, Amiga 500, Commodore 64, Atari 800XL, Atari 2600, 7800, ]
[ Lynx, Sega Master System, Genesis, Game Gear, NES, SNES, Game Boy, NEO GEO]
Brett Johansen
> Hmmmmm....well, does Blitz BASIC II have good documentations? I'm
>not much of an Assembly programmer (I learned a bit of C64 6502 but when I
>got my Amiga I just dropped it)...so is it still easy to use among non
>assembly-mad-dogs? I've been recently plugging around with my AMOS 1.3
>version (got it to work on my 4000) and it seems pretty cool... although
>I haven't tried any ambitious stuff on it, it does seem adequate. I think
>I am going to hold off on AMOS PRO until I master this regular AMOS here.
>My main problem with Blitz BASIC II is the lack of tutorials in books etc.
>So what's the scoop? Are there good instructions bundled with it, or are
>there books somewhere that can help me out?
>--
>Ralph A.Barbagallo III_Only AMIGA Makes it Possible!_nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us
>[ Amiga 4000/030, Amiga 500, Commodore 64, Atari 800XL, Atari 2600, 7800, ]
comparing BLITZ to AMOS is a bit of a joke!!!
amos has no concept of data structures such as records for example!!
I bought Amos 2 years ago its good to learn with but to write anything
serious is not possible especially application multitasking programs??
Amos has its own routines for windows and menus ????? Why ,this was a bit
of a joke in my opinion.
BLITZ BASIC ("They should drop the basic")! has two modes AMIGA which allows
you to access all the system libraries and write real apllications.
The other is BLITZ modes which kills of the os and gives full control to your
program - Speed in Blitz is the other major factor when comparing it to AMOS!!!
BLITZ is considerably faster and "cleaner" - simply BLITZ is the best.....
Its not as compicated as C but you do need to know how to program a bit before
you start.
The editor in AMOS is incredibly bad when it comes to running it in
a multitasking environment - screen blankers for instance are just a no go
i'm afraid. Blitz's editor is a proper application with true multitasking.
The major thing is a program written in AMOS can always be instantly recognised
as an AMOS program whereas BLITZ programs look just like any other program,
BLITZ hasn't yet got the support of the users like AMOS has but BLITZ is a
small NZ company and they are getting there slice of the market.
I could go on for pages about the advantages of BLITZ - i have missed heaps!!
Well AMOS People what have you got to say about that!!!!!
--
c910...@cs.newcastle.edu.au Brett Johansen
AMOS!!!!!!! AMOS!!!!!!!!!! We don't need no stink'n AMOS!!!!!!!
Brett Johansen
>than...@titan.ucs.umass.edu (MATTHEW D SCHMILL) writes:
>>If I see an article with an AMOS header, I want to find
>>out about AMOS.
>Sounds fair enough ... here are my experiences with AMOS and AMOS Pro:
>I come from a background of a lot of Basic programming having programmed
>on a PET, Apple ][+, C64/128, Atari 800, Atari 520 ST, many Macs, IBMs,
>and of course on my Amiga in a variety of different implementations. I
>have done some machine coding to stick into programs, but I do not enjoy
>doing so and would avoid it at all costs if possible. I had been using GFA
>Basic on my Amiga and picked up AMOS in an attempt to have some fun
>programming since dealing with GFA was a collosal pain in the butt. These
>have been my experiences from AMOS to AMOS Pro:
>1. Very, very good documentation. The manual is nicely laid out and easy
>to read through, MUCH to the relief of anyone who's seen the GFA manual.
>Each command is described thoroughly and good examples are given underneath.
>The manual is nicely bound and won't fall apart on you like many others
>I've seen.
>2. Very easy to use. There are many commands that do the "book keeping"
>for you, particulaly relating to graphics operations such as icons, sprites
>and BOBs. I never liked all the setup work that went into doing anything
>graphical and so I appreciate this feature. Sounds, both sampled and in
>module form, are extremely easy to implement. Importing and manipulating
>graphics is also easy and very well provided for. Many, Many commands
>exist, to make programming easy to do so that a person who programs for fun
>like me can get down to what he enjoys doing most.
>3. I like the speed of AMOS, especially with the compiler. I know from
>reading the previous posts that AMOS' speed has come under attack, but I
>have found that it is quite fast enough to do many, many interesting things
>with. Can you get the most out of your Amiga speedwise with AMOS? No. Is
>it as fast as Blitzbasic II? Beats me, I've never used it. But I have
>written both Wabes and Cow Wars in AMOS, games which I believe are nicely
>done and professionally presentd, in AMOS and had a great time doing so.
>AMOS might not be fast enough for power-programming studs around the world,
>but for people like me, who enjoy programming as a hobby, it is more than
>fast enough to express the ideas we would like to.
>4. The support from the AMOS creators has been outstanding. Bugs are
>constantly being fixed by the creators and updates are both free and
>available by FTP. The AMOS e-mail list has been extremely helpful to
>many people in understanding the way around the language and coordinating
>user-reported bugs/suggestions with the AMOS author.
>5. Though many people have complained about bugs in AMOS, I must say for
>the arcade-style programming I have done, I have encountered nothing
>particularly buggy. Maybe other applications run into them more often, or
>maybe the fact that I don't have other programs running in the background
>account for some of this. I don't know. But I have found the system very
>usable form a bug point of view for the things I have done. Your mileage may
>vary of course.
>6. The AMAL language is an animation language that allows you to set a
>sprite/BOB/screen in motion controlled by a small machine-language-like
>program that is entirely driven by interrupts. So you set it up, start it
>off, and let it interact wit your program without any more guidance necessary.
>This is, to me, a wonderful feature and has made my programming very
>easy to do while providing high-quality results.
>7. The programming environment of AMOS Pro is a joy to work in. It is
>a tremendous advance over the original and the nicest programming interface
>I have come in contact with.
>I am not claiming that the above points are unique to AMOS although some of
>them may be. They are merely my observations after having used the language
>extensively and having been very pleased with it. There are some things
>that are annoying, sure: I'd love to have a CASE statement and some folks
>have reported having trouble running AMOS on certain machine configurations
>(though I do not know if this is their fault, AMOS', or more probably some
>of one and some of another).
>I have never used Blitzbasic II and pass no judgement on it one way or
>another. But, even if Blitzbasic II is miles ahead of AMOS, I still feel
>comfortable in saying that for people like me, who program as a hobby and
>like to put out PD-quality programs with a minimum of hassle, AMOS is a
>fine language and I don't regret using it for a minute.
Well I started with AMOS and then I spotted BLITZ.
BLITZ is a well thought out language it is so much more
flexible than AMOS that they don't even compare.
It's difficultly is sort of the step between AMOS and C. Basically
BLITZ is a language that has Pseudo BASIC control structures and file
handling. It allows for the use of linked lists easily , and records.
It uses the os properly and easily but also has BLITZ mode which is used
for writing games.
It has hundreds of commands for bobs,sprites screens etc which make
it easy to program the Amiga hardware. (Just as easy as AMOS in my opinion)
But these commands are faster than AMOS and they allow you more access to
the amigas tremendous HARDWARE.
AMOS isn't bad to start in but if you can write anything decent in AMOS
then BLITZ is the next logical step. I don't mean huge games or anything
I mean getting bobs/sprites to work and using windows. Windows on AMOS are
a joke - Why not use the system libraries??????
BLITZ does for windows and alike.
Simply BLITZ is great for writing applications and alike, AMOS is a joke!
BLITZ is also great for writing games or just fiddling, It's faster than
amos , its has better stlye than amos , it has more features than amos
and it really isn't that much harder to program in!!!
--
c910...@cs.newcastle.edu.au Brett Johansen
Hands off!!!!!!! Hands OFFFFFFFF!!!!!!! (Late show Joke - AUS)
Sam Taylor
You posted an article about the Blitz BASIC II documentation a while
ago. Well, I have just got Blitz, and although the documentation is
very good, I would say for the first-time programmer Easy AMOS is
probably a better choice of a first language.
HOWEVER, if you have had _any_ experience with other languages (in
particular C or Pascal) then you shouldn't have any real problems
picking up Blitz. The manuals are full of examples, and the more
powerful facilities of the language aren't vital to getting yourself
going.
I know this debate is going to go for quite some time, but from my
experience Blitz is just a much better language (in the expressive
sense) and the fact that it produces "proper" AmigaOS programmes
which will happily work on within the Workbench means that it is
leagues ahead of even AMOS Pro .... but I bet that some of you won't
agree with me .... :-)
Ralph Barbagallo
Hmmm...Blitz sounds very good... and when I upgrade from AMOS 1.3
I'll give it a look. I've been poking around in AMOS for about a week now
and it seems okay... I just want to write games basically, no apps.
My main problem with Blitz is that there aren't any books out on
it. I just bought the Amiga Game Maker's Manual-AMOS and it's not bad...
there are tons of other books and magazine tutorials too (not to mention
diskmags like Amoner etc.).... Hopefully, by the time I'm ready to upgrade,
Blitz II will have some good books out etc... I have seen some good Blitz
programs (Defenda, I think it was called... a smooth Defender clone)
I know what you mean about AMOS' editor.. it REALLY sucks. Sometimes
I need to switch screens to read a textfile or something but AMOS won't
let you....I suppose PRO is better but I'll probably give Blitz a serious
look when I decide to upgrade to PRO or BB...
--
Ralph A.Barbagallo III_Only AMIGA Makes it Possible!_nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us
[ Amiga 4000/030, Amiga 500, Commodore 64, Atari 800XL, Atari 2600, 7800, ]
Kent.Dalton
Ralph> I know what you mean about AMOS' editor.. it REALLY sucks. Sometimes I
Ralph> need to switch screens to read a textfile or something but AMOS won't
Ralph> let you....
Try the Amiga-A key combo, dude. Man, you *really* need to get a manual.
Ralph> I suppose PRO is better but I'll probably give Blitz a
Ralph> serious look when I decide to upgrade to PRO or BB...
Pro is several orders of magnitude nicer, as a programming environment,
than AMOS 1.3x.
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton * EMail: Kent....@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-319 */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A * FAX: (303) 226-9556 */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 * */
/**************************************************************************/
YOW!! I'm in a very clever and adorable INSANE ASYLUM!!
Ralph Barbagallo
: >>>>> On 3 Aug 93 07:05:13 GMT, nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us (Ralph Barbagallo) said:
:
: Ralph> I know what you mean about AMOS' editor.. it REALLY sucks. Sometimes I
: Ralph> need to switch screens to read a textfile or something but AMOS won't
: Ralph> let you....
:
: Try the Amiga-A key combo, dude. Man, you *really* need to get a manual.
I know, but WHERE? Does EuroPress have a U.S. office?
:
: Ralph> I suppose PRO is better but I'll probably give Blitz a
: Ralph> serious look when I decide to upgrade to PRO or BB...
:
: Pro is several orders of magnitude nicer, as a programming environment,
: than AMOS 1.3x.
Do I need to kick my 4000 down to ECS (like in AMOS 1.3x) to run it?
hos...@elpp1.epfl.ch
> Kent.Dalton (Kent....@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM) wrote:
> : Pro is several orders of magnitude nicer, as a programming environment,
> : than AMOS 1.3x.
> Do I need to kick my 4000 down to ECS (like in AMOS 1.3x) to run it?
Fact is, you do not need to return to the dark Ages of ECS any more when
you use Amos 1.3x. The latest version (is it 1.36? I can't remember) runs
well on a A4000/040 with all caches on, and AGA, of course.
What's more, Amos 1.3x is cheap, has a fast interpretor, and a correct
built-in editor (not pretty at all, but useable, even with an A500).