PureBasic Forums - English

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM% ... =nefd.lede

Would would the impact be on the MacOSX version of PureBasic if Apple moved to Intel hardware?
As Fred codes mostly in assembler, would he have to start over for the OS X platform?
How much of his existing work would he be able to leverage?
I guess in the long term though, it might eventually result in less work for Fred?

I think the largest problem would be threads like this.

I believe that most LIB's on the Apple platform is coded in C so a shift from PPC to x86 should be fairly easy. I personaly can't see how this shift would give Fred less work as he still has to make sure the PB LIB's work on three (four if you count AOS) different OS's.

I think the largest problem would be threads like this.

What's wrong with the question?

USCode wrote:

I think the largest problem would be threads like this.

What's wrong with the question?

What's wrong with the answer?

What's wrong with the answer?

Was that what that was?

Who said Fred was doing most of the code in ASM?

No... if, let's say, the next version of MacOS runs on Intel but still remains
the same API, porting PureBasic shouldn't be that hard.
It may even be easier as the asm output could stay x86 for all platforms
then.

I personally wouldn't worry at all, as the article talks about mid-2006, but
that's just me...

The most interesting line in the article might be this one:
"IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story."

Who said Fred was doing most of the code in ASM?

"External libraries are fully written in hand optimized assembler for maximum speed and compactness"

http://www.purebasic.com/introduction_windows.php3

Apple would be crazy to do this, the ultra cheap and fast "cell" processor could be used to make a new very fast video processing mass market mac. It also runs powerpc code.

I reckon its just rumours spread by people who don't even know there is a difference between x86 and ppc!

The next couple of years could really change things, even the Amiga has a chance. Its now PowerPC based, so it too could use one or more cell processors. It would be superfast compared to current generation x86 machines. Now that would be something!

-Anthony

Where does it say it'll be an Intel x86 ?
Maybe Intel are setting up a PPC fab.

Heck, it might be for a non-mac product, a new ipod, PDA or whatever.

To be honest, the article is nothing more than CNet hyping up a rumour that's been coming and going the last few years.

Anyway, only a few hours to go to see what all the fuss is about.

The next couple of years could really change things, even the Amiga has a chance

With the current Amiga Inc management, I doubt it. Hope I can be proved wrong on that thought.

Intel would need a licence to manufacture the ppc, but they don't have one.

But I agree, its probabily for either some intellectual property that Intel own that may be needed for a new mac or something similar.

Either that, or Steve Jobs is quite stupid/mad...

I'm the same as you with the Amiga too, I hope it makes a comeback... There was something about that machine that still makes it more than a pc. Wierd ehh?

DoubleDutch wrote: Either that, or Steve Jobs is quite stupid/mad...

Is he stupid enough to announce to the world that in 12-18 months the Mac will be x86 powered, knowing by doing so he'll kill mac sales until then?

Then again, iTunes and the ipod make them more money than PPC hardware..

USCode wrote:

Who said Fred was doing most of the code in ASM?

"External libraries are fully written in hand optimized assembler for maximum speed and compactness"

http://www.purebasic.com/introduction_windows.php3

Fred uses his own intermeddiate ASM language which then produces natice machine code for the target platform.

The main differences against normal compiler was the integration of a Virtual Processor (which actually use the 680x0 assembly mnemonics) right from the beginning to allow different kind of assembly (or any langage in fact) output without changing the compiler core.

Read the whole thing here:
viewtopic.php?t=9739&postorder=asc&start=9

rumors, rumors, rumors...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

I thought using intermediate code WAS the standard compiler, and not using it was non-standard.