Re: A83: ideas and stuff
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: ideas and stuff
Robert Caldwell wrote:
> 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.
Ok, well agreed. Can you think of a better system?
> 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).
I've thought about this a while, and I think it is too tedious to link to
the .txt file.
> 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.
You say "If they took all those other languages off the market, I wouldn't
want it. I like having many ways to program a game." and then "if the shell
receives no attention then that shell should be taken off." Aren't you
contricting yourself?
--
Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>
File Archives, HTML, and Support
the ticalc.org project - http://www.ticalc.org/
References: