rainwarrior wrote:
Would recommend that you stop using those outdated documentation links, though. The current stuff is here, and a
lot has changed in the past several years since those were frozen:
https://cc65.github.io/doc/Yeah, I think I've been lectured about this more times than I can count. :-) The reason I get them wrong has to do with the bloody search results in Google or other SEs. Searching for "cc65 documentation" gets you these (order may vary per person, based on Google's weighting algorithms):
Code:
cc65 Documentation Overview
https://www.cc65.org/doc/
cc65 Users Guide: Usage
https://www.cc65.org/doc/cc65-2.html
GitHub - cc65/doc: the official cc65 documentation —
https://github.com/cc65/doc
cc65 Users Guide
https://cc65.github.io/doc/cc65.html
cc65 - a freeware C compiler for 6502 based systems
https://cc65.github.io/
ca65 Users Guide - cc65
https://cc65.github.io/doc/ca65.html
And this is just for cc65 -- but if you look very closely, the last result is actually for ca65 (the assembler), but says "cc65" in the title hence it comes back in the search results.
This same situation applies (though slightly varied) to ca65 and ld65. For cl65 and da65 (disassembler), the situation is much more clear: you only get 2 results: the
http://www.cc65.org version and the cc65.github.io version.
github.io (a.k.a.
"GitHub Pages") is the "web content" part of github.com, i.e. refers to content in your GitHub repository that you can change/manage with commits like normal, as long as its maintained either via static files or dynamically by GitHub via Jekyll. (I always forget this "sub-feature" of GitHub exists, as I prefer native Markdown documents so that I don't have "multiple websites" showing essentially the same stuff (github.com vs. github.io) -- just put all the content on github.com, which renders Markdown itself, and be done with it)
In short: I wish whoever maintains cc65.org/www.cc65.org would take the time to set up proper HTTP 3xx redirects from old document links to cc65.github.io and relieve half of this confusion. Users are almost certainly going to pick a website based on the software's name over something on GitHub. The actual project maintainers have obviously revamped documentation in a good way (ex. there is no more "cc65-2.html", they just put it all into one document and used anchors), but there's "old stuff lingering" that continues to take priority search-result-wise. :-(