A82: Re: Libraries
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
A82: Re: Libraries
>If we had to do an include in the source to use stuff in the library,
>you get a lot of wasted space (Same routine on the calc 10 times). So,
>how about we get good versions of the core calls, and have Dines do a
>simple include into the Ash source, and recompile it into ash 3.5 or
>something. For example, why not include point on and getpixel and so on
>in Ash allong with maybe a DM_HL_DECI (Someone made a good one a while
>ago that is pretty useful, unless we find it in the ROM) and a sprite
>routine? We could also include code to do ROM CALLS (Like my earlier
>post) for stuff like the things to print text strings that require no
>real speed. This way, Ash has a set of core caalls that are the most
>often used ones. It is simple to do, as there is no real programming
>involved (Adding full usgard lib support). It only needs a simple
>recompile, and we then don't have to include multiple versions of the
>same simple routines, but gives us the ability to take the bytes used by
>all the usefull routines.
When usgard .95b was released it included library support, so all programmes
could just call the libraries for commonly used rutines. Libraries also had
the advantage that you only had you the rutines on the calc that you needed
for the programs you where using. The only problem with this was that no one
wanted it ! Most people thought it was way too complicated with all these
libraries on the calc, and therefore it was removed in usgard 1.0. Most
programmers liked having libraries because it was alot easier to program
using them, but besides them no one really liked it. Usgard 1.x includes a
number of obj files which you can use in your program, and this makes it
just as easy for the programmer as when you where using libraries. The big
difference is that now the progra,s does not share the code, which makes
every program bigger. If people on the ti85 hated libraries why should
poeple on the ti82 like them ? Most people on this are probably programmes
and would like the idea, but generally i think people would think that this
was a bad idea. Therefore i think libraries are a bad idear.
As i wrote earlier it might be a good idea to change the romcalls so
programmes can use normal calls even if it takes up a bit more space. Jason
and i will discus this and mybe it will be included in the new shell. Usgard
has added some of the very used functions in the core of the shell. This of
cause makes the shell a bit bigger, but if just one program uses each
function it saves space. this could be done on the ti82 too, but i depends
on what people want.
>
>BTW: How about some sort of function "logo" requirements? For example,
>functions can not change any of the registers.
>
>
I do not think it is a good idea to require that all functions preserve all
registers, in a lot of cases it is not nessasary to save them all, so it
just takes up more space and makes the function slower.
Dines
Follow-Ups: