Re: A89: Re: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
That is why I suggested to use three or four libraries. The fewer the libs,
the easier for the user. The more the libs, the easier for the developer to
update. I think three is a good medium between the two.
-Miles Raymond
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Vaughn <cyberdeity@pdq.net>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
>I can understand that the user needs simplicity, however, making one giant
>library would cause far more problems than it would solve. Because from
time
>to time developers would want to update libraries and having one big one
would
>present problems. The TI community would be swamped with many diffrent
>incompatible large libraries. But with the smaller libraries upgrading is
far
>more easier.
>
>Nathan Mueller wrote:
>
>> I think from the point of view of the user, it would be best to simply
>> combine these three libraries into one. Since the're pretty standard
stuff
>> it wouldn't be a problem. You must remember that the people using these
>> programs aren't as calculator savy as you are. I think that we could
make
>> the small developer-end sacrafice to make it easier for the user.
>>
>> --Nate