28-Mar-2024 17:34 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 49 items in your selection
[Web] STOS and AMOS SiteANN.lu
Posted on 31-Aug-2003 11:02 GMT by Darron Cox49 comments
View flat
View list
STOS and AMOS Site Found this site the other night. Followers of the old STOS and AMOS may be interested in this link. http://www.clickteam.com/English/amosstos.php
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 1 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Larry Laffer on 31-Aug-2003 09:56 GMT
Guys, AMOS was the biggest mistake that ever hit the AmigaOS software market. AMOS has diluted the Amiga software pool so much I at times weren't all that happy showing other people what Amiga applications looked and felt like.

Let's keep AMOS in the closet once and forever, and let's never speak of it again. The future is slick, streamlined AmigaOS 4 C-code.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 2 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 10:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Larry Laffer):
>Let's keep AMOS in the closet once and forever, and let's never speak of it again. The future is slick, streamlined AmigaOS 4 C-code.

Amen!
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 3 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 10:05 GMT
There might be newbies that start with AMOS, and find
programming worthwhile, they may then want to proceed
to programming in C and creating neat OS4 apps.

I.e., we need something to capture the beginners.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 4 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 31-Aug-2003 10:08 GMT
I disagree.

Amos was just the perfect tool for easily creating tools for yourself, like mapeditors, copperlist creators and small/simple programs etc.
Hell, a few years ago I made a software synth on AMOS in one hour.. on c/asm i'd be still doing it.

Amos is/was slow, had lots of flaws, many crappy games were programmed using it, but still it helped me and many others save fuckload of time when used a side asm/c
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 5 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Daniel Miller on 31-Aug-2003 11:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Larry Laffer):
I disagree that it was some zero sum game where AMOS stopped some other software from appearing by polluting the scene with its lameness. AMOS just allowed some less advanced coders to express themselves, it didn't stop others from programming in C or whatever they wanted. And there was good stuff coded in AMOS. Bounce was pretty good. Go try Bounce.

It's nice that Clickteam offers the source now, but they should also offer the source for AMOS Pro! AMOS Pro was the cleaned up and more modern version and it would probably be much easier to port to a modern PPC OS such as MorphOS, or AROS on PPC or X86. If we could get AMOS Pro ported we'd be "looking good" as Freddie Prinze used to say.

The question of a BASIC variant has come up on Morphzone before. If not AMOS there are other candidates out there that might be easier ports. Maybe PureBASIC runs already. There are other ones out there whose authors post their progress from time to time. It would be an asset to the community to get a focus and some increased development on a BASIC for MorphOS and AROS and and Amithlon or any other OS that comes out.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 6 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Atheist2 on 31-Aug-2003 11:44 GMT
So why is it that C CHOSES to stay difficult to use? Is it beyond ANY humans capability to write a program called easy C???

It should, any time a new variable is used, put up a requester, asking what type of variable it is. = should be =. I don't know what == is. Etc., etc.

I was able to code using Amos Professional. Even pure basic was deliberately cryptic. Never had blitz basic, but it looked daunting, from some short listings I saw in a magazine once.

AmigaOne! AMOS was one of hundreds of best things that happened for the Amiga!
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 7 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Senex on 31-Aug-2003 12:17 GMT
AMOS and AMOS Pro were great!

Beginners could have quick results - just a "Load iff" to display a picture, etc. pp. That many functions.

I really wished there would be a (system-friendly) AMOS Pro for MorphOS today...
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 8 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by StAn on 31-Aug-2003 12:27 GMT
Yeah, a system-friendly Amos Pro would rule...

(though by the time it would see the light of day, I'd very probably have (re)made all its functionnality in C...)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 9 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 31-Aug-2003 12:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Atheist2):
Well thats the difference between using a toy-language and a real one ...

When I need a variable I declare it, making sur it is know what type it is
and in what scope it is valid.

"=" IS "=" and "==" is "compare too", something completly different, and using
one symbol for both would be a rather stupid idea.

Learning C and hard, and anybody actually capable of writting complex SW (not
just "hello world") should have no prob with it or other languages of thie
kind.

While Basic is quite nice and o.k. for little tools and beginners, it is also
not suited for writing big apps (which is possible, but won't be easier or better
readable than anything C).
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 10 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Lando on 31-Aug-2003 13:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Kronos):
C isn't hard at all - it's all very logical and straightforward. Maybe I just found it easier because I learned asssembly language first, but there are loads and loads of 'C' tutorials on the net to help you learn, and it will be a LOT more useful to you than some archaic version of BASIC that nobody uses any more.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 11 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by tinman on 31-Aug-2003 13:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Daniel Miller):
If you mean PureBasic from http://www.purebasic.com then it should already run - the 68k and WUP classic Amiga version has been around for some time. Sadly it hasn't been updated for a long time because of lack of interest and no apparent future market for Amiga stuff.

There's also Blitz, which is still being worked on, if you want something in between AMOS and PureBasic in terms of system unfriendliness ;)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 12 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 14:40 GMT
before you say that AMOS is just crap and that it's just been alot of crap games to come out of it, I think you should take a big look at BabeAnoid :)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 13 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 31-Aug-2003 14:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):
Amen.

Babeanoid rocks from over here to over there without even slowing down ;-)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 14 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Senex on 31-Aug-2003 14:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Lando):
It's not about writing big apps like office packages, etc. It's about an easy gateway for the user to tackle with his computer more intensely. To start being creative, making the computer do what he wants. In short: to actually use it as a computer, not just a static device like a DVD-player or toaster. Look at the average computer users of today and compare them with us back then - there's no deeper knowledge anymore, just stupid making use of two or three applications that are there. And if something isn't possible, it's accepted to not being possible. Basic is an easy way to take an initiative. I don't understand the sometimes (not by you personally) arrogant comments by C-coders. IMHO, those easy Basic languages had their share in the Amiga's special quality - and also in the attachment of its users to the platform. Again, see it as a start, an easy gateway to use the computer to do something youself want it to to, to become creative. And, of course, after this start, it's very likely the user will switch to a higher language. Once he's all for programming. But for a start, for a plain user, C certainly isn't as attractive and delivering quick satisfying results as four, five lines of AMOS Pro which open him a screen with his own picture in the background and even move a sprite around there.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 15 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 16:20 GMT
The clasification of a programming language does not include the term "real".

Such terminology is only for the arrogant elitist to put down anything that undermines their false thorn in order to make themselves feel impotent.....

As was pointed out in teh clickteam site, AMOS and STOS where written in Machine language and when it comes to what is real and what is abstract, machine language is as real as it gets withe the abstraction ladder going next to assembly language and then higher level abstract languages. And for the sole purpose of making it easier for people to program.

If you want the BASIC programming language then pay tribute and honor to the inventors and get "TRUE BASIC" which in fact was also made for Amiga.

If you want a more modern and popular language that is relatively easy to use and being promoted as a first language to learn, then get Python, if it's not already available for your platform for free.

Oh but wait, what about Amiga Incs/Wooters (sp?) SHEEP "do everything" programming language?

Christ, all of these are nothing more than programming languages of various levels of abstraction (Cept for SHEEP, which might just be another programming language name Wooter can put on his resume but you can not see or use.)

AMOS/STOS though written in machine language, or is that assembly???? Machine language is like what you entered into a C=64 ... a sequence of 0's and 1's from perhaps an issue of Compute Magazine. Anyways what is written in very low level abstraction programming language was the program that allowed you to use higher level abstraction to program something else, the execution engine.

But as a matter of fact, all programming languages allow one an ability to "put pre-existing, perdefined things together while also creating new things in the process, that can later be use as a part in putting something else together"

At what point does it no longer matter what language is being used so long as the user interface allows the "putting things together"

IE, would you call it a programming language to fill out a query form as to what features you want included in the Linux kernel you are about to compile.... without knowing anything more than how to fill out the form?

Certainly you have defined the details of the abstract kernel you are going to create and use. Filling out such a query is telling the automated system what to include and not to include in it's putting things together, where details of exactly how it does it and whether or not to include other stuff needed, is hidden from the user/programmer.

Perhaps such a query leading to the production of a functioning system isn't a "real" programming language???

If so it is interesting how such a non-real language of query communicates intent that is then executed.

Maybe I have the definition of "language" wrong, that it is somehow something more or different than "enabling communication"?

Then there is what you can identify when you step outside of the sphere of language but looking back at it. The undeniable mechanics, the gears and bearings of abstraction movement that makes language come to life, usable.

Q: How "REAL" is such mechanics?

A: as real as the abstraction of language gets at the apex/point of conversion to physical reality.

The twilight zone of inherent personal subjectivity???
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 16 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Lando on 31-Aug-2003 16:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (3seas):
>AMOS/STOS though written in machine language, or is that assembly????

They're one and the same. You're just using the mnemonics instead of the actual binary code for each instruction. If you were a REALLY leet coder and knew the binary equivalents for each assembler instruction you could write 11100101011 (or whatever) into a binary editor instead of move, but it wouldnt run any faster and would be very hard to read :)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 17 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Matt Parsons on 31-Aug-2003 18:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Lando):
I doubt there is any program out there that would allow you to write in Binary... I expect you'd have to use a Hex editor (which would make function calls easier)... and you would still have to link it before it would be executable...
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 18 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 19:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Lando):
"mnemonics instead of the actual binary code for each instruction."mnemonic = actual binary codewhich is exactly the act of creating an abstraction one level up from the ground of actual.As such, Assembly is a 1st level up abstraction of machine language.It's important to understand the concept of abstraction...Hmmmm, since I entered a sequence of 0's and 1's from a compute magazine article into the C=64, does it make me an l337 coder?
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 19 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 31-Aug-2003 19:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Matt Parsons):
You can always create hunk headers using a hex editor, too :P
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 20 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 19:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Matt Parsons):
converting ascii 1's and 0's to individual bit values....making up bytes...like what the compute mag program did when you ran it on the binary representation you entered at the keyboard...You know what, I think you can actually do that in AREXX code.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 21 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 19:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (itix):
Did binary become hexidecimal like bin Laden became Sadam?binary only has two elements 0 and 1 and they represent a switch value of off and on, respectively.Hexidecimal contains 16 elements, 0-9 followed by a-f where each element equates to a binary four place values (half a byte), including 0 and 1.so unless you are programming binary via the abstraction of hex, four binary place values at a time, then a hex editor won't work, least not directly.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 22 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Megol on 31-Aug-2003 19:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (3seas):
"The clasification of a programming language does not include the term "real".

Such terminology is only for the arrogant elitist to put down anything that undermines their false thorn in order to make themselves feel impotent..... "

Yes that is so true! That is the same elitist thinking that makes most programs written in C/C++ when usage of a higher level language would make it faster to program, less buggy and easier to maintain...
[I program in C but only for things that it is good for: low-level systems]
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 23 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Megol on 31-Aug-2003 19:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Lando):
">AMOS/STOS though written in machine language, or is that assembly????
They're one and the same."
Nope.
Assembly languages are an abstraction of machine language that at very least helps resolving forward references (which anyone that have coded by machine language alone can tell you is a real PITA to handle) and often supports pseduo-instuctions and macros.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 24 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 20:17 GMT
Checking thru my ol C64 stuff.... Compute had listings for the C64 in binary, Hexidecimal and even decimal, also of course BASIC listings, but each had a program you would run to enter the listings. I don't recall how you entered the program that you would then run and I don't think it was always in BASIC. I seem to recall one of these programs was self translating into the program you;d then enter listings into.Oh how much time consuming fun it was... and to thenk we are going to have an FPGA programmable C64 soon in teh C+One...Any of you all remember the Superscript text editor?
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 25 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Matt Parsons on 31-Aug-2003 20:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (itix):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can always create hunk headers using a hex editor, too :P
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :-D
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 26 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by tonya on 31-Aug-2003 20:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Matt Parsons):
ASSEMBLER IS THE ONlY WAY to go!!
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 27 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 03:50 GMT
Hmm strange, why you can't download Amos professional ? There is pictures of AMOS professional but you can only download original AMOS...

I think AMOS Professional was wery good at it's time. I did buy original AMOS, AMOS Compiler, AMOS 3D extension and then finally AMOS Pro. I did like original AMOS too, but I liked Pro more, it was much better I think.

I still have AMOS Pro installed, but I's long time since i used it last time. C and C++ is way to go now. AMOS is still good if you want to learn how to code...
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 28 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 03:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (3seas):
Just to make sure you know it: AMOS was nothing like C-64 Basic :) AMOS is Basic variant, but you can't even compare C-64 basic and AMOS.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 29 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 04:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Atheist2):
"So why is it that C CHOSES to stay difficult to use? Is it beyond ANY humans capability to write a program called easy C??? "

Well C is not easiest language to use if you have not used it before, and if you have not coded much. But C is not even meant to be newbie language. It would be much better to start with something else. it's important to learn how to code first, it's not imporatanyt which is your first language. Basic or AMOS is good when you re learning to code.

C, and C++, might look a bit difficult at start, eg. pointers cause problems
for the most of the newbies. But once you learn basic rules it is not so difficult. Using pointers is maybe the most difficult part of the C-language to understand.

C is maybe a bit difficult, because it's so flexiple. C allows you to do lot's of things which you can't do with languages like Basic. C does not restrict users as much as languages like basic or AMOS.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 30 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 04:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Kronos):
Well I don't think that language which is easy to use is automatically a toy-language. AMOS as a language was quite powerful, the implementation just was not so good because AMOS was not system friendly. I have to admit that systemfriendly AMOS would rock. I personally prefer C, C++ and Java, but I understand those who would love to use AMOS again.

If you think eg. Windows, there is lot's of tools and GUI-based wizards which try to make professional software development easier and faster. You do not want to write everything by hand anymore, you don't have time or money for that.
So I don't think that easy to use language is nesessarily a toy language. More important is how powerful the language is and what you can do with it. And AMOS as a language was not so bad at all.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 31 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 04:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Kronos):
Well I don't think that language which is easy to use is automatically a toy-language. AMOS as a language was quite powerful, the implementation just was not so good because AMOS was not system friendly. I have to admit that systemfriendly AMOS would rock. I personally prefer C, C++ and Java, but I understand those who would love to use AMOS again.

If you think eg. Windows, there is lot's of tools and GUI-based wizards which try to make professional software development easier and faster. You do not want to write everything by hand anymore, you don't have time or money for that.
So I don't think that easy to use language is nesessarily a toy language. More important is how powerful the language is and what you can do with it. And AMOS as a language was not so bad at all.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 32 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 04:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Lando):
>AMOS/STOS though written in machine language, or is that assembly????

They're one and the same. You're just using the mnemonics instead

They are not the same. Sometimes Assembly is called as symbolic or mnemonic machine code though. It depends on Asssembler what you can do, some do not have lot's of features when others have lot's of them which make coding easier. Many assembly variants allow you eg. to use symbolic variables, macros, open libraries etc. Machinecode is just pure binarycode which CPU can understand.
When you compile the assembly-code you create machinecode.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 33 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 04:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (miksuh):
"Sometimes Assembly is called as symbolic or mnemonic machine code though"

Doh forget that mnemonic here, symbolic is ok :)

Anyway, I meant that Assembly is higher level language when compared to machinecode. Assembly language is an abstraction of machine language.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 34 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 04:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (tonya):
Hmm, you mean Assembly ? :) Assembler is a compiler, language is called as Assembly :)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 35 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Lando on 01-Sep-2003 06:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (miksuh):
>>AMOS/STOS though written in machine language, or is that assembly????
>
> They're one and the same. You're just using the mnemonics instead
>
> They are not the same.

Assembly language is nothing more than a symbolic representation of machine code. Each assembly language instruction directly translates to one machine code instruction.

On the AMOS / STOS site they say "AMOS and STOS were entirely written in Motorola 68000 machine language." Now, unless you actually believe he wrote everything in a hex editor he obviously means that they were written in assembly language. Like most normal people, they say "machine code" to mean "assembly language".

>Sometimes Assembly is called as symbolic or mnemonic machine code
>though. It depends on Asssembler what you can do, some do not have lot's of features when
>others have lot's of them which make coding easier. Many assembly variants allow you eg. to use
>symbolic variables, macros, open libraries etc.

And these are features of whatever assembler software you might be using, not part of assembly language. Many 'C' compilers have cool features too but they are not part of the 'C' language.

>Machinecode is just pure binarycode which CPU
>can understand.

Obviously... the computer cannot execute "program.asm" as it is just an ascii file!
Each machine code instruction is a direct translation of one assembly language instruction to its binary representation....

Write an assembly language program, assemble it, then look at it in a disassembler - its the same code you just wrote.

Even looking at the 1's and 0's on your computer monitor is a "symbolic representation" of the machine code - it is also an abstraction.

> When you compile the assembly-code you create machinecode

You don't compile assembly language you assemble it. Compilation is what you do to 3GL code like 'C' or BASIC.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 36 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 01-Sep-2003 06:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Lando):
"Assembly language is nothing more than a symbolic representation of machine code. Each assembly language instruction directly translates to one machine code instruction."

Most assemblers also support Macros, which give you a taste of a higher level language. An extreme example is Tao's VP, which is a Macro Assembler in which most of the commands are macros.

The reason you can enter machine code as Hex on a typical 8 bit computer is that the ROM contains a routine to support this. It can convert hex from the keyboard into binary in RAM. There will probably also be a ROM routine to dump the RAM contents to tape.

The only time I ever had to enter 0s and 1s directly was when inputting the bitmaps of a font for the basic display of a graphics card (the equivalent of Topaz 8 on the Amiga). A Hex editor OTOH is an essential tool for 8 bit assembly programming - mainly for debugging.

Even on the Amiga, a hex editor is as somebody said very useful for checking file headers when you have problems with IFF, WAV, AIFF etc files.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 37 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Raffaele on 01-Sep-2003 06:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (miksuh):
Mr Miksuh wrote:

>Just to make sure you know it: AMOS was nothing like C-64 Basic :)
>AMOS is Basic variant, but you can't even compare C-64 basic and AMOS.

Wrong, AMOS is not a Basic!

AMOS is an AUTHORING LANGUAGE in which commands emulates those of Basic and even listing structure emulates that of Basic.

This is because to minimize curve of learning.

However seems that everybody here missed the point.

---------------------
Hey Psssst. People...
---------------------

AMOS IS NOW FREE SOURCE!

This will mean that a group of valid coders, could turn it into something better and more useful.

By the way I posted the news of AMOS free source 2 weeks ago, but it seems to me that it was canceled immediately from ANN.

Maybe the maintainers does not feel I wrote a real news, or there was problems on the system when I sended the news.

Ciao,

Raffele
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 38 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 07:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Raffaele):
Then why even in Amos manual they did talk about Amos basic ? :)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 39 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 01-Sep-2003 07:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (miksuh):
Ah .. Miksuh.. How nice you have finally decided to stop playing
anonymous red-troll on ann.lu. (*)

Getting back to this thread.. I have never used Amos myself but what
i remember from old age it had really bad reputation on breaking even
on old systems for even minor changes of hardware (like adding extra
floppy drive). So unless it has been radically altered it would take
total rewrite to get it working on anything up to date.

PureBasic seems to be quite clean, even though not directly usable at
this pouint... It starts (latest Amiga demo version) on Mmos/Pega and
it's possible to compile/run simple programs. It does cause numerous
hits (apparently to nonexisting hardware) though, so it's not nether
fast nor too reliable.

BlitzBasic would be interesting if someone could get it's author to
port latest (upcoming actually) BlitzMax back to Amigas. During years
Blitz has become strong, coherent, and totally OS friendly
development sytem (on windowse though..). BlitzMax is supposed to be
release to Windowse, Mac, and X86-linux and it uses OpenGL for Gfx.

Of that old Amiga Blitz (blitz 2000?) I have no experience yet. I
should install it someday and see how nice it's at this point.




(*) Like it had been much secret to those you have targetted: IP's,
posting habits and attitudes tells a lot, especially on small group of
people like net active Amiga users in Finland. I do expect you'll keep
on trolling with this nickname too :)
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 40 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 07:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Raffaele):
I can't aggree with you. AMOS is as much Basic variant as BlizBasic, AmigaBasic, VisualBasic or any other language which is more than less based on original Basic. I did not say AMOS is same as original basic, but it's Basic variant. I'm not 100% sure what you mean with authoring language here. but AMOS is general purpose language which ofcourse has lots of commands which can be used for game development. But AMOS is not just game development tool, it's a programming language and you can use eg. Amiga shared libraries from the AMOS.
So you can extend AMOS with external plugins and Amiga libraries.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 41 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 07:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (JoannaK):
Joanna: Anfd i hope you wil stop trolling on threads which you are not actually interested.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 42 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 07:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (JoannaK):
I really DO NOT care what YOU think. I do not care if you look at IP-numbers or not etc. Atleast I'm not starting flamewars on every MOS thread like you do in every OS4 thread :P
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 43 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 01-Sep-2003 07:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (JoannaK):
For your information, When i'm posting something to any site where i write I'm most of the time using my own nick, only if I forget to write it then it's not there. So I'm not playing any anonymous games like you think. And i have no any intention to continue this with you.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 44 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 01-Sep-2003 08:04 GMT
Just remembered, wasn't the Amiga's Scorched Earth-game clone, Scorched Tanks, done using AMOS.. that game was actually pretty good!

What was the more OS friendly clone of the same game.. by some german developers...? It was shareware if I remember.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 45 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 01-Sep-2003 08:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (miksuh):
Miksuh: I know you don't care what I think. And I have seen that you
don't bother to read my posts before you send these replies. And
that your replies (often being quite close to personal insults) have
even less to do with thread than my postings.

So... As we both know these.. And we all know where your heroes
are and to who do you belive. Perhaps you should just cool down and
stop harrasing me and others who happen to have different views than
yours. Please?
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 46 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 08:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (JoannaK):
JoannaK

You need to replace the nickname "Miksuh" with "JoannaK" and you will see that the words
equally apply to you.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 47 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Raffaele on 01-Sep-2003 08:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Anonymous):
Two Anonymous people wrote:

>Then why even in Amos manual they did talk about Amos basic ? :)

Well, except the fact that the programmer can wrote what he want in his manual, this not assume he was right...

However...

>I can't aggree with you.
>AMOS is as much Basic variant as BlizBasic, AmigaBasic,
>VisualBasic or any other language which is more than less
>based on original Basic.
>I did not say AMOS is same as original basic, but it's Basic variant.

It can be also my fault. No problem, I will change my mind if I am wrong.

BUT...

What do you think about the main news?

i.e. The fact that the SOURCES OF AMOS ARE NOW FREE???

I think this is really good news and a start to a great chanche of developing AMOS.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 48 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 10:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Raffaele):
It's a BASIC variant, stop making a fool of yourself.
STOS and AMOS Site : Comment 49 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 01-Sep-2003 11:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Lando):
> Assembly language is nothing more than a symbolic representation of machine code.> Each assembly language instruction directly translates to one machine code instruction. Not exactly. Assemblers may modify and optimize your code. PPC assembler provides some extra instructions which are not "real" but translated to multiple machine code instructions.
Anonymous, there are 49 items in your selection
Back to Top