Re: A83: ideas and stuff

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

Re: A83: ideas and stuff


But if you do them for SOS and use libraries, then they'll take less
memory, and you can make your games even greater, it doesn't take very
much time to implement a library call in your code.

/Stefan

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Harper Maddox wrote:

> 
> As a programmer it really is a HASSLE to port games to two different shells
> on the same calculator.  Perhaps because i still use Ashell.  If more shells
> arrive then they will STEAL valuable time that programmers have for making
> new games, in order to port a game to 3 different shells.
> 
> My solution to the problem:  COOPERATION instead of competition
> 
> also, you dont have to write a four page message to make your point, Rob.
> 
> -Harper Maddox
> 
> jerky@ebicom.net
> IRC nick: Geori
> ICQ: 1214597
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Caldwell <rc_ware@hotmail.com>
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Cc: assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org>
> Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:35 AM
> Subject: Re: A83: ideas and stuff
> 
> >Now I'm getting kind of ticked...just a little.  I specifically said
> >"assembler" not compiler, there's a difference.  An assembler I always
> >thought of was something that changes word to byte, word to byte, and it
> >was always 1 to 1 direct translation.  Compiling is something that
> >stores all labels and crap first, then starts to assemble.  I wanted to
> >see something simple as an assembler at first, then later have it
> >upgraded to a compiler, and maybe even a translator.
> >
> >About the 1 star thing...in your opinion it maybe a sucky 1 star
> >program, but in my opinion it might be a 3 or 4.  My opinion may go the
> >other way too, if you think something is great and 5 star, I may think
> >you're stupid and it should be a 1 star or not even on the charts.
> >
> >I got kind of ticked because you answered with "that's what he
> >means"...I CAN ANSWER FOR MYSELF...I'm not some baby that can't type.
> >
> >About the splitting apart the .zip...most contracts say "this .zip isn't
> >to be split up from it's original files"...well if you just COPY the
> >.txt inside, you aren't splitting the .zip up, you're just showing to
> >the "audience" what's inside the .zip.  There are always ways around a
> >contract or license agreement, or even the every day packets--as my dad
> >got $1,000 benefits from finding a loophole in the homeowners-self
> >employed documents.  PLUS, who's going to sue ticalc.org for anything
> >they do to their FREE files?  Who's going to waist their money to bring
> >a FREE file up in court?  (I would say stupid dorks who think they can
> >bum money off of people just by taking them to court--it's the coffee
> >incident all over again).
> >
> >About the numerous shells.  I think it's great that someone out there is
> >understanding how a calculator works.  I say keep on making the shells,
> >and if those people making games want to so-called "port" them, fine,
> >it'll give you some experience too.  You say there shouldn't be so many
> >shells, yet people keep upgrading.  You say "there are only about 2
> >browsers, and web-pagers want them to look good on both" yet those 2
> >browsers have so many upgrades to them, it's like having 100 browsers.
> >Let's take programming languages as an example instead (since shells are
> >assembly programmed and that's a language and THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING
> >ABOUT).  There's basic, c, c++, vbasic, vc++, asm, and many more.  Well,
> >why do we need all of these languages, why not make one that has the
> >ability to work all the way down to machine language, translates,
> >debugs, easy to use and handle, very upgradeable, and compiles.
> >Seriously who here would like to see 1 program that does everything that
> >the other languages could do but better?  If they took all those other
> >languages off the market, I wouldn't want it.  I like having many ways
> >to program a game.  I like to be able to port my games, and seeing the
> >speed difference between the languages.  I wouldn't want to be stuck
> >with only 1 language.  Variety is the word I'm looking for here.  Basic
> >has it's easy to use interface, while c and c++ has it's speed.  Maybe
> >there's a shell that possibly is easy to use, while another has it's
> >speed.  At least people are doing something instead of sitting on their
> >butts.  It gives us something to do.  And if the programmer sees a new
> >shell, then it's their choice to port their programs, if the shell
> >receives no attention then that shell should be taken off.  I have
> >tried, and I am still trying to learn how the calculator works.  I can't
> >get my romdump to work, so I'm trying to do it using hexdump or
> >whatever, but my cord doesn't work.  This frustrated me to the point in
> >typing this massive e-mail.  I want to learn all of the calculaors, and
> >then I could make a shell for each calculator that is translated across
> >calculators, and the porting of games isn't thought of anymore.  I've
> >got some designs done so that each calculator will support the same
> >things.  I've heard that 1 of the calculators don't do some of the ASM
> >that others do, so I'm planning on placing that inside the shell.
> >
> >How does that sound?
> >
> >-Rob
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> 
>
References: