A89: Re: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
A89: Re: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus <slider_klaus@gmx.net>
To: Assembly 89 <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 6:27 AM
Subject: A89: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
>Kernel:
>I totally agree with a kernel. A kernel has lots of advantages. The main
>advantage is the safe of memory.
>You don't need to include a specific feature(error-redirection, ...) in
>every program on your calc, just put it in the kernel once and the feature
>is accessable from all your files.
>What is so hard on typing kernel() ?
That's a good reason to have a kernal, but then the author should make two version- one for the
kernal, and one without it. One bad thing about having a kernal installed on the calc is that some
people don't like them and no one has made a kernel "uninstall" yet...
>Libraries:
>Libraries are such universal, once the 92+,89 files compiled with previous
>versions of PlusShell or DoorsOS will be updated there won't be a chaos any
>longer. They safe memory because you sure will have at least 3 programs on
>your 188k+384k calc which use UTIL.H. And UTIL.H will grow when official
>asm-info will be released.
>About making one-big-library? There would be too much version-problems,
>imagine one is updating this the other one is updating that. Each one
>release his own advanced library. Now we have got a problem!!
>Another problem would be the growing of the one-big-library-memory. For now
>we can not archive libraries. Isn't the max variable size 64k on 89/92+
>because of the archive memory-sectors?
As I think I said before, the libraries would be best used if we had a limited number of them, such
as three or four. Every library would contain all the code to all related current libraries. So
there would be a library for graphics, a library for compression, and a library for misc utils and
such. I think most library functions would be broken down into these three categories. The util
lib might be larger than the other two, especially the compress lib, but I think they would still be
small enough to serve their function.
>What about level files, music files, data files, maps, ...? Every single
>file would be a program. Imagine a choice of ~100 files to execute in your
>PlusShell Browser!
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you can create your own file types on the 89. In the VAR-LINK
window, when you choose to limit your view of the fiels displayed, there is an option for "Other"
files to be displayed.
>In all, don't change anything concerning the library-use or kernel-use and
>don't waste memory!
>Rusty, what's about the other unused sectors of flash-rom?
>
>Klaus Lukaschek
>slider_klaus@gmx.net
I don't think that limiting the libs will waste more memory, but it won't necessarily same mem
either, until there are more programs for the 89.
-Miles Raymond
Follow-Ups: