Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
On 05-Oct-98, Joe Wingbermuehle wrote:
>I agree with Linus on libraries for shell-independent programs, especially
>since I stole the idea from my vast array of ancient programming books. The
>term library was founded not too very long ago, however, because the old
>name is "shared files."
sorry, my fault. =)
> Well, my guess is that the change came about
>between 1974 and 1975 since I have a book from 1974 that refers to them as
>"shared files" and a book from 1975 that refers to them as "libraries." hehe
>They all agree that libraries are meant to conserve space while allowing
>programs to use code that is optimized for speed though.
>Anyway, here's why there will always be compatibility problems: as long as
>computers exist, I will write for a particular system/os/shell that I like
>and others will do likewise. So what? Deal with it.
>And lastly, when I say I would have changed the library format, I meant
>from:
>.db "ZLIB",0,0,0,0,lib1,vec1
>to:
>.db "ZLIB",0,lib1,vec1
>That and the way I wrote ZLib (which isn't terribly excessive anyway...).
>So you waste 3 bytes every time you use ZLib; I bet you waste more looking
>up that long name ZMENULIB in the vat.
>Joe Wingbermuehle
>http://www.usmo.com/~joewing/
Yep, that's true. But the thing I don't like about your system is that when
you want 5 functions from one library you have to specify the name of that
library five (!) times. WHY?
Linus
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Linus Akesson <lairfight@softhome.net>
>To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
>Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 6:03 AM
>Subject: Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
>>
>>Library, n.: A separate file containing program code meant to be shared
>among
>>several applications.
>>I know that the word library is often used to refer to a sos library, but
>>would you believe me if a said that the computer term "library" was founded
>>somewhat before sos was written? =)
>>
>>You say that using only sos will cut back on compatibility problems. My
>reply
>>is that not using any shell at all would extinguish compatibility problems.
>>
>>And I don't like the way libraries are handled in sos, I mean, even Joe has
>>admitted that he wouldn't have used that method if he'd written sos now.
>>
>>Linus
>>
>>On 04-Oct-98, Jkhum98@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>In a message dated 10/03/98 6:04:03 PM, lairfight@softhome.net writes:
>>
>>>>ZMENULIB is a 395 bytes big file, containing ready-to-use menu code.
>>>>It is NOT a sos library. Instead, you have to look the program up, and
>>>>jump to the beginning of it. This way, it can be used by
>shell-independent
>>>>programs (AND sos programs of course).
>>
>>>Hey Linus, nice job on this, but I think its kind of contradictory to make
>>>this shell-independent, and call it a _Library_ at the same time... =P I
>>>personally think that SOS should progress as the main shell (I think other
>>>people besides Me and Joe use this shell), and this shell is more useful
>than
>>>Ashell or running programs from the OS, because of the obvious reason of
>>>Library Usage... Although, you have a point that any of these methods of
>>>running programs should be able to use your routine, but why not create a
>SOS
>>>library for it, and then people just start coding for SOS... =P I know I
>>>shouldn't be bias to anything but SOS, and that it shouldn't monopolize
>the
>>>shell usage, but having One shell would cut back on compatibility problems
>>and
>>>competition, for example, look at the shell wars or the 85 and 86 (the 82
>>>also, but Ash 3.1 will soon resolve that) and think of how Plusshell and
>>>DoorsOS Compatibility for the 89 at this time are causing conflicts... Is
>it
>>>really Morally wrong to have a Specific shell for a calculator and
>eliminate
>>>competition? Its not competition for money but more like programmer and
>shell
>>>popularity (y'all know it is), but it would make the Users of all the
>calcs
>>>(Including the Calculator-Adept Programmers, and the "Calculator Impaired"
>>>people at school who depend on us for games) it would make everything a
>>little
>>>bit easier to focus on one Shell... Whew, a lot of Preaching in there, did
>>>that have "ticalc.org News Article" potential, since it was a whole lot of
>>>crap...? Well anyways, I'm sure Ill get a lot of negative opposition on
>this,
>>>Bring It On! =P
>>>--Jason K.
>>
>>
References: