Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!hao!husc6!husc4!hadeishi From: hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: More Electronic Arts Bashing... Message-ID: <2507@husc6.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 14:54:21 EDT Article-I.D.: husc6.2507 Posted: Fri Jul 10 14:54:21 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 11:51:20 EDT References: <3526@well.UUCP> Sender: news@husc6.UUCP Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) Distribution: na Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center Lines: 40 In article <3526@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > General EA Bashing: EA claims to offer to its artists a state-of- >the-art program development system. This means an Amiga with a CSA Turbo >rack with the Manx compiler, right? *Wrong!* It means an IBM-AT with the >Lattice cross-compiler. Well, not completely true. I agree that native development is superior to cross-development, although both is even better (having an AT to run the remote debugger is great.) I personally have always done native development, and I think you are right, it has contributed to the general reliability of the stuff I've done on the Amiga. EA, however, developed the AT cross-development workstations because they were committed to Amiga development long before prototype machines were available. I should note that they put a large fraction of their development staff on the Amiga out of pure faith in the machine and a desire to work in a state-of-the-art environment, despite the fact that it was very iffy at the time whether the Amiga would even get to market at all. I should note that this was a great risk taken by EA, and it was not at all a money-driven decision (they had most of their top developers working on the Amiga way back before it was even a news item to most people). The AT stations were necessary because there was nothing else to develop on; they were running a simulation of an Amiga on an AT. Later they turned it into a cross system, which many people there still use, but not all. They have long known of the advantages of the Manx compiler, and many (I'm not sure how many) of them have switched (including Dan Silva, for DPaint II). > EA should seriously examine these issues. It could well be the root >cause of a lot of the, shall we say, "fluff" in their products. I agree. There is a good argument for native; I prefer native---but note that EA had put in a lot of effort getting tools for people to use on the cross systems, and it was some time before alternative native environments were available. (Also, many of them *bought* their ATs, and in the middle of projects to switch to native would have been a pain.) As I say, people like Dan Silva have switched to Manx, so others may have too (I haven't been around there recently.) -Mitsu