Re: A82: CrASH Hacked!!!!


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A82: CrASH Hacked!!!!




Thomas J. Hruska wrote:

> At 05:37 PM 6/6/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Grant Stockly wrote:
> >
> >> Someone needs to make a shell with proper vat routines.
>
> Agreed.  Would you like the source code :P
>
> Speaking along those lines, I've already had two requests for the source
> code.  Since everyone is SUPER-DUPER TICKED OFF AT ME, I will not be
> releasing it...just to appease most of your appetites.  After this run in
> with you guys and your apparently strong feelings against people exploring
> the realm of programming, I therefore won't explore the realm of shells.  I
> had no idea that you guys would get so ticked off.  Won't even mention the
> word shell again.  NOW ARE YOU HAPPY??!?!?!?!?!?!

Yes. :)  I don't see how you could have expected the CrASH authors to welcome
the release of their source code with open arms.

> >I really think the author(s) or Ash & CrASH should get together and make
> >one standard shell for the TI-82.  They are so similar - Ash 3.1 runs
> >CrASH programs and CrASH 1.3 runs Ash 3.0 programs.  That is crazy.
>
> Better yet, we should create a list of standard features that we think is
> necessary in a shell and then create that standard shell.  As to my input
> into this list, I think the shell needs to be able to be customized by the
> user the first time it is run (such as if the user wants the highlight bar
> to scroll smoothly, or if they want a blank screen on exit, or if they want
> the name of the program instead of the title to appear, or even a split
> window).  This way, everyone will be happy with the standard shell.  Sure
> it might be 500 bytes larger than the current shell, but no one would have
> an excuse to make another shell because they don't like the layout.

IMHO, those are very minor things.  I don't think the extra 500+ bytes is worth
that.

> I personally won't be participating in making this new shell because you
> guys don't want me to explore the realm of shell making.

No, we just don't want people disassembling other people's code and releasing
it.  And we don't want 10 shells for the 82, like there are for the 85.

> I'm sorry I even brought this topic up.  I realize now that I wasted 7
> hours of my life and nobody is happy with me because of it.  Maybe that's
> because I said that I was going to make a shell from the source code, or
> maybe something else.  Anyway, whatever it is, I had no idea that you would
> all suddenly decide that programming was bad/wrong.  Sure ripping apart
> CrASH wasn't one of the brighter things I've done recently, but it didn't
> require a zillion people telling me to not program my own shell.  I never
> even said I would distribute the shell I made, did I?  You were flaming me
> for experimentation in the programming realm.  Einstein experimented, was
> made fun of/flamed, and is an international hero.   So, I guess I'm saying,
> (I'm not an Einstein yet) you flamed me for no reason.  I'm S-O-R-R-Y.
> What more can I say?

No, you invested 7 hours of your life to get the source for CrASH for your own
personal benefit (whatever that may be).  You can make your own shell, you can
make anything you want, no one is stopping you.  It's just that the TI
community doesn't want a dozen shells laying around.  Does anyone remember JASS
for the 82?  Or MISh, OS/7, or CShell-NT for the 85?  No one (almost) uses
those shells anymore.

--
Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>
   File Archives, HTML, and Support
   the ticalc.org project - http://www.ticalc.org/



References: