Re: A86: Re: OK. So, I kinda get what you're sayin'

To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A86: Re: OK. So, I kinda get what you're sayin'
From: "Kirk Meyer" <kirkmeyer@bigfoot.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:56:06 -0700
References: <0.d83b27b9.2590c856@aol.com>
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org


As Josh said, it would create shell dependence. The TI has interrupt
support, but you're kind of dependent on the TI already, if you get my
meaning =)

Anyhow, if there was interrupt support in a shell, it usually takes the form
of allowing multiple programs to install interrupts at once (a la Usgard)
and although you can usually trust people to write short interrupts, if
you're doing something processor-intensive and some idiot installed an
interrupt that takes 50% of the processor time or changes a few memory
locations you didn't want changed, it's gonna suck. Much nicer to know what
you're dealing with.

IM 2 is nice for most programs I have found, because it allows for
self-modifying code. (TI's does too if you're anal about where you put
things).

----- Original Message -----
From: <DorkReMi@aol.com>
To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: A86: Re: OK. So, I kinda get what you're sayin'


> Why is no interrupt support a "good" thing?
>
> -Josh Morris
>  Macross Software
>  dorkremi@aol.com

References:

Re: A86: Re: OK. So, I kinda get what you're sayin'

From: DorkReMi@aol.com