More ETH Lilith goodies available

[Jim Battle]

> Richard wrote:
>> In article <48AC779E.7030606 at bluewin.ch>,
>>     Jos Dreesen / Marian Capel <jos.mar at bluewin.ch>  writes:
>>
>>  
>>> Still lots of difficult ( for me) X11 coding to be done, disk 
>>> emulation still
>>>     
>>  buggy, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
>>   
> The TRAIN !?
>> I would recommend using wxWidgets <http://www.wxwidgets.org> as your
>> GUI layer.  Its portable to Windows, Mac, and *nix.  If you're
>> willing, there is also a good book that you can purchase that will
>> explain lots of stuff about wxWidgets.

I've written a couple emulators using wxWidgets; it is highly 
recommended.  It's API is showing its age, but it is still tons better 
than low level X11 or Win32.  I wrote my Wang 2200 emulator without a 
single concern of OSX compatibility.  It probably took about 8 hours to 
add some tweaks to make it run well on OSX.  I haven't attempted a linux 
port, as I don't use it myself, but I would expect a similar amount of 
work to get it going on that platform (mostly getting the build 
automated, I'd expect).

Qt is another API worth looking into; it is free to use for 
non-commercial projects.


bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
> I want to cry out ... Real hardware I want It.

That is twice you've recently complained that people are writing 
emulators for machines that you'd like hardware for.

At the risk of repeating myself (as I could swear this was hashed out 
recently, but it is only  vague notion):

I don't get your reasoning.  Someone writing an emulator in no way 
precludes you or someone else from building hardware.  In fact, it is a 
good stepping stone towards building real hardware.  Even when building 
new hardware, building a software model first is often useful.

Even if someone took the time to build a hardware version, emulators are 
a lot cheaper to reproduce.  No, they don't feel exactly like the real 
hardware, but then again, neither does your pet, FPGA-based emulation.

And another thing [ :-) ], if an emulation can pass the "computer Turing 
test," i.e., someone sitting at a remote terminal interacting with the 
computer can't tell if it is real or emulated hardware, on what basis do 
you complain?

"You numskulls doing XYZ are idiots.  Don't you know the proper way is 
PQR?  Nothing but PQR will do, it's obvious!  Why, I'd do it myself, 
except I find I'd rather complain about people doing XYZ!"

> Can  new bit slice version of the hardware be built?

of course.  someone with enough time and motivation could do it.  Just 
spend hundreds, if not thousands, of hours working on it, spend another 
hundred hours putting together a website to share what you've done and 
give away all the designs you have created and all the information you 
have collected.  Then wait for the complainers to let you know how THEY 
would have done it.

> Also did any of the 'Wirth'  languages have  plans  for 32 bit data and 
> adresses?

Pascal doesn't mention 16b or 32b anywhere in any language spec I've 
seen.  I've run Pascal programs on a PC, and that is 32b, so yes, Pascal 
does run on 32b machines.