6502.org Forum  Projects  Code  Documents  Tools  Forum
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 7:36 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:08 pm
Posts: 1043
Location: near Heidelberg, Germany
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
fachat wrote:
Btw - as a little teaser... xa65 will get in 2.4. also cheap and unnamed local labels with ca65 syntax.
Should be out in a week or two.

Didn’t know you were still maintaining xa65.  Cool!


I am not. Cameron Kaiser maintains it. But we are working together to get a better feature set, like listings, compatibility options, or improved linking out.

André

_________________
Author of the GeckOS multitasking operating system, the usb65 stack, designer of the Micro-PET and many more 6502 content: http://6502.org/users/andre/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:52 am
Posts: 746
Location: Germany
sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but the xa65 source code is in dire need of a clean-up/refactor.
i tried porting it to windows (and even my 65816 SBC as a little experiment) a while back and gave up because it was honestly just horrendous to look at.
there is inconsistent/broken indentation, sometimes it's tabs, sometimes spaces, (sometimes it's both on the same line).
also there's inconsistent whitespace between operators. i'd always recommend 1 space between operators except for brackets for readability, and sometimes you do do that like "var = 1 + i", but other times it's all mushed together like "var=1+i".
and i've also noticed variables using inconsistent casing, sometimes there are underscores to seperate words (snake_case), other times there aren't (flatcase). this can lead to very similarly sounding variables, like how the file xa.c has 2 different variables named "no_link" and "nolink".

so overall i'd highly recommend just sitting down and refactoring and reformatting the entire thing (for the latter there are a lot of online code reformatters you could use). some more comments would also be nice, especially before any bigger/more confusing pieces of code or variables with shorter names to explain what they're generally for (or maybe just giving variables longer names, like there are literally 2 variables named "er" and "ner" with no explaination given on what either mean or do).

again i'm sorry if this sounded harsh but this just has been stirring in my brain for a while now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:08 pm
Posts: 1043
Location: near Heidelberg, Germany
@Proxy - yes, you are absolutely right, and we are awfully aware of that.

2.4.0 will come out in this state - but I'll see what I can do for 2.4.1, if time allows and Cameron does not object.

For Java, there are refactoring tools that rename all occurrences of a variable, so the code stays consistent. Is there anything available for C? Can Eclipse IDE do that .... ah yes, just checked. Will be very helpful....

_________________
Author of the GeckOS multitasking operating system, the usb65 stack, designer of the Micro-PET and many more 6502 content: http://6502.org/users/andre/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 pm
Posts: 64
Location: Sunny So Cal
Quote:
sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but the xa65 source code is in dire need of a clean-up/refactor.
i tried porting it to windows (and even my 65816 SBC as a little experiment) a while back and gave up because it was honestly just horrendous to look at.


Andre mentioned this post to me (coincidentally I reactivated my account here yesterday). I'm not as nice as he is.

That said, I'm going to restrain myself and simply say that while the code definitely isn't pretty -- and if you'd looked at earlier versions you'd see where new code tries to be more consistent and I've added comments to other sections for my own reference -- people always say "this needs a rewrite/refactor" like a rewrite/refactor will solve everything (and yeah, we know about spaces, variable names, etc.; Granny is perfectly capable of sucking eggs). The history of computing is that refactors and rewrites end up introducing nearly as many bugs as they fix.

What attracted me personally to xa in the first place is that it compiles on nearly everything and "just works" (FTR, there have been Visual Studio solution files and mingw support since at least 2007, so I don't know when you were trying to work on it -- if they don't work then I'll gladly accept updates). I've also taken a very conservative approach to regressions which is why there is a large test suite and we keep adding to it, and try not to break syntactical oddities people may have been depending on, at least between point releases. Refactors screw that up too.

We're already introducing some breaking but IMHO necessary syntactic changes in 2.4, mostly in those edge cases, and adding a rewrite just adds more regression risk. Andre and I are xa's most important users but I suspect the other people using xa also do so because updates have been so conservative. It will still build on your old little NetBSD machine, for example, and it should still generate the same bitwise output from your hairy preprocessor macros.

As we get more complete coverage from test cases, we can try to clean up the technical debt. I concede this post was pretty harsh too and I'll wear that, but you kind of asked for it.

Cameron Kaiser

_________________
Machine room: http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2023 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:52 am
Posts: 746
Location: Germany
6502inside wrote:
people always say "this needs a rewrite/refactor" like a rewrite/refactor will solve everything (and yeah, we know about spaces, variable names, etc.; Granny is perfectly capable of sucking eggs). The history of computing is that refactors and rewrites end up introducing nearly as many bugs as they fix.

i know that rewriting existing code will inevitably lead to loads of edge cases and similar bugs, but shallow clean ups (ie variable names, whitespace, and comments) shouldn't break things, or atleast not as badly, though would still help a lot with readability.

6502inside wrote:
What attracted me personally to xa in the first place is that it compiles on nearly everything and "just works" (FTR, there have been Visual Studio solution files and mingw support since at least 2007, so I don't know when you were trying to work on it -- if they don't work then I'll gladly accept updates).

oops nvm i'm dumb, i just tried it again and was able to fully compile it on Windows with MSYS2 and the included make file.
specifically i had to do it from within the MSYS2 terminal instead of the Windows one.

6502inside wrote:
I've also taken a very conservative approach to regressions which is why there is a large test suite and we keep adding to it, and try not to break syntactical oddities people may have been depending on, at least between point releases. Refactors screw that up too.

yea ok that's a pretty good argument.

6502inside wrote:
We're already introducing some breaking but IMHO necessary syntactic changes in 2.4, mostly in those edge cases, and adding a rewrite just adds more regression risk. Andre and I are xa's most important users but I suspect the other people using xa also do so because updates have been so conservative. It will still build on your old little NetBSD machine, for example, and it should still generate the same bitwise output from your hairy preprocessor macros.

As we get more complete coverage from test cases, we can try to clean up the technical debt.

yea, full rewrites make more sense for really big updates where you likely have some breakage anyways.

6502inside wrote:
I concede this post was pretty harsh too and I'll wear that, but you kind of asked for it.

nah it was fine, tbh a lot of that was just frustration because i really wanted a native modern macro assembler on the 65816.
though that job is likely better suited for something specifically written for it. C or not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 pm
Posts: 64
Location: Sunny So Cal
65816 support is an acknowledged weaker point. I've got a WDC SXB myself now and I will likely do fixes where I find pain points while I'm programming it (but the KIM-1 is more fun because it's more of a challenge).

Quote:
specifically i had to do it from within the MSYS2 terminal instead of the Windows one.


I'll add that to the docs. Thanks for checking it still worked, since I don't run Windows locally.

_________________
Machine room: http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: