Arelor around Sunday, June 28th...

Hello!I recenlty ran into an article about FreeDOS in Linux Magazine. I already knew of FreeDOS's existence but the article made me curious so I did some research.I wonder if there is any recommended starting point if you want to get started developping programs or incorporating device drivers to FreeDOS. Most of my coding experience is with interpretated languages, but I have done some C/Cpp. I have also done some toy Hellow-Wordlesque programs in "Wintel" Assembly.Any good resource for getting started coding simple stuff in order to get a grasp of what developing for MS-DOS was like back in the day?

A lot of the coding I did back in the day in DOS was with Turbo Pascal. Look for the SWAG archive, etc. You can incorporate ASM very easily inline with your
Pascal code very easily as well.

A while back I create a small utility for 8086 machines using the modern Free Pascal Compiler. Developed and compiled from a modern Linux machine but FPC has
a nice cross compile toolchain for older machines/DOS.

If you wanna go even more modern-retro, people have had success using Rust to create DOS binaries :) If you want to go older, Turbo C is also a good option, or more limited Quick Basic (look at the stuff that is created in the DOS competitions every year!)





--

NuSkooler
Xibalba BBS @ xibalba.l33t.codes / 44510(telnet) 44511(ssh)
ENiGMA 1/2 BBS WHQ | Phenom | 67 | iMPURE | ACiDic

--- ENiGMA 1/2 v0.0.12-beta (linux; x64; 12.13.1)
* Origin: Xibalba -+- xibalba.l33t.codes:44510 (80:774/20)
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au

Re: RE: Learning to code for MS-DOS/FreeDOS
By: NuSkooler to Arelor on Fri Jul 03 2020 12:08 pm

If you wanna go even more modern-retro, people have had success using Rust to
create DOS binaries :) If you want to go older, Turbo C is also a good option,
or more limited Quick Basic (look at the stuff that is created in the DOS competitions every year!)

Don't they take your Retrocomputing license for using Rust or something? :-P

I was not aware there were DOS competitions anywhere. I will have to look those out.

I think I'd rather work with a language that has modern day applications for the most part. Life has been sucking a bit for me so I am not having as much time as I want for learning a language that has only retro applications.

---
■ Synchronet ■ Havens BBS havens.synchro.net:23

Arelor wrote to NuSkooler <=-

Re: RE: Learning to code for MS-DOS/FreeDOS
By: NuSkooler to Arelor on Fri Jul 03 2020 12:08 pm

If you wanna go even more modern-retro, people have had success using Rust

to Nu> create DOS binaries :) If you want to go older, Turbo C is also
a good option, Nu> or more limited Quick Basic (look at the stuff that
is created in the DOS Nu> competitions every year!)Don't they take your Retrocomputing license for using Rust or something? :-PI was not aware there were DOS competitions anywhere. I will have to look those out.I think I'd rather work with a language that has modern day applications
for the most part. Life has been sucking a bit for me so I am not
having as much time as I want for learning a language that has only
retro applications.

Is Rust for DOS efficient? I tried it briefly for Linux, and it created very large libraries. I'm not even sure there is a DOS compiler, you would have to compile on an other OS and transfer it to DOS.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (80:774/13)
■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au

On Saturday, July 4th Dennisk said...

Is Rust for DOS efficient? I tried it briefly for Linux, and it created very large libraries. I'm not even sure there is a DOS compiler, you would have to compile on an other OS and transfer it to DOS.

I've not had this issue with Rust, probably lib(s) you brought in? Yeah, you have to cross compile to produce DOS binaries. This is certainly something more
bleeding edge. FPC is better suited if you want to produce DOS binaries from a
cross compile and have better support I imagine.




--

NuSkooler
Xibalba BBS @ xibalba.l33t.codes / 44510(telnet) 44511(ssh)
ENiGMA 1/2 BBS WHQ | Phenom | 67 | iMPURE | ACiDic

--- ENiGMA 1/2 v0.0.12-beta (linux; x64; 12.13.1)
* Origin: Xibalba -+- xibalba.l33t.codes:44510 (80:774/20)
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au

NuSkooler wrote to Dennisk <=-

On Saturday, July 4th Dennisk said...

Is Rust for DOS efficient? I tried it briefly for Linux, and it created very large libraries. I'm not even sure there is a DOS compiler, you would have to compile on an other OS and transfer it to DOS.

I've not had this issue with Rust, probably lib(s) you brought in?
Yeah, you have to cross compile to produce DOS binaries. This is
certainly something more
bleeding edge. FPC is better suited if you want to produce DOS
binaries from a
cross compile and have better support I imagine.

Possibly it was libraries. Maybe it was defaulting to static linking. I remember trying some switches, but couldn't get it much smaller.

Might play with Rust again, but I can't see much other reason to use it other than the borrow checker. D seems to offer more as a general purpose programming language which can be used as the "next C++". It just doesn't hav DOS support though.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
* Origin: The Dungeon BBS Canberra, Australia. (80:774/36)
■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au