Nerdy nights for ca65?

[darkhog]

Someone recently posted this in the other thread which seems to be translation of Nerdy Nights sources into ca65: https://bitbucket.org/ddribin/nerdy-nights/src

Unfortunately this is just sources, not tutorials updated to explain ca65. One great advantage Nerdy Nights has is that explains both syntax of the assembler they're using (NESASM, which is IMO a crap as it doesn't allow for more fancy things that ca65 has such as .proc routines or macros) and NES developing in general.

When embedding ASM code, author explains line by line what this code does, how it achieves that and why it does it that way. Unfortunately mentally substituting NESASM is challenging for someone who just learns NES development.

Has or could anyone update Nerdy Nights as to refer to ca65 syntax instead of NESASM's one with appropriate code sameples?

[Movax12]

Code for both assemblers is by and large going to be the same. I would think that to achieve your goal of understanding both the tutorial and the ca65 assembler, it would be a good idea to read through nerdy nights and the ca65 code together and ask what you don't understand here.

BTW, .proc is the same as:

foo:
.scope foo

So it's not that fancy; it's creating a namespace and symbol with the same name. But the macro support in ca65 is pretty good.

[qbradq]

The ca65 Documentation Page is a very good reference for the assembler syntax, especially the directives.

[darkhog]

I have this problem with documentation, not only for things like ca65, but for programming languages/libraries in general that docs tend to be too dry. It's good when you want to check specific thing (say, how to do thing when user presses a button), but not great for learning syntax/functions from scratch. For learning things from scratch, tutorials tends to go better at least for me.

[cpow]

I have this problem with documentation, not only for things like ca65, but for programming languages/libraries in general that docs tend to be too dry. It's good when you want to check specific thing (say, how to do thing when user presses a button), but not great for learning syntax/functions from scratch. For learning things from scratch, tutorials tends to go better at least for me.

It looks like someone's already done half the work of translating the tutorials into cc65. I can create template projects out of them and would love to update the documentation...the issue is just...time. Documentation is, unfortunately, always the piece that ends up pushed into "spare time".

[darkhog]

When I see bunch of random asm opcodes, I see a bunch of random asm opcodes. When I see them explained in tutorial like Nerdy Nights however...

[Shiru]

If you want to learn 6502 assembly code programming, get a book on 6502 CPU, there are plenty of them.

If you want to learn NES specific programming, use Nerdy Nights tutorials along with NESASM. Lack of few rarely used advanced features in NESASM surely won't be a problem for this. You always can move to some other assembler later.

If you want to learn CC65 particular tools specifics, read their docs and use many examples that are available now.

I'd say it is pretty high expectations to wanting all these things being explained in a single document. Or a low motivation, perhaps, because there are plenty of people (including this very forum) who learned NES programming and wrote games without having such a combined tutorial, or Nerdy Nights, or a crap like NESASM even.