Re: LZ: Usgard

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

Re: LZ: Usgard

None of the CShell specific calls are worth a wazoo anyway, so I call it
ZShell development.  I do personally use CShell.  Or did, anyway.

Jim Reardon
jim.reardon@juno.com
Viva La Mexico
http://pages.prodigy.net/eviljim/
We all come into the world the same way - naked, screaming, covered in
blood.  But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't have
to end there.

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:07:16 -0400 Daniel Walls <flinn@mindspring.com>
writes:
>Jim Reardon wrote:
>> 
>> At first I was really interested in Usgard, but when it was released 
>I
>> was sorta disapointed.
>> 
>> First off, size postings were very misleading.  Sure the shell is 
>only
>> 4k, but then your interface, a bunch of libraries, and the whole 
>shebang
>> didn't leave me with much space for programs.
>> 
>> As for the actual interface, very nice, except "Explorer" was quite
>> buggy.
>> 
>> Programming for Usgard, while I just "dabbled" is quite nice.  
>Relocation
>> is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Libraries, though, don't 
>save
>> as much memory as I thought they would (mostly because I still have
>> mostly ZShell games, plus not much space is left after the shell is 
>put
>> on).  Some of the new CALLs look helpful and very promising.
>> 
>> So now my debate continues: develop for ZShell or for Usgard?  What 
>does
>> everyone else think?  What shell are you personally going to stick 
>with
>> and use?
>> 
>> Jim Reardon
>> jim.reardon@juno.com
>> Viva La Mexico
>> http://pages.prodigy.net/eviljim/
>> We all come into the world the same way - naked, screaming, covered 
>in
>> blood.  But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't 
>have
>> to end there.
>
>ZShell is dead.  There is no reason to use ZShell over CShell.
>
>- Dan Walls
>grpshot@csra.net
>
Follow-Ups: References: