Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
For using ZLib having to look up "ZLIB" five times in the vat is kind of
silly, but for ZGFXL it isn't so bad since there are only 2 routines.
That's one of the reasons why ZLib isn't written so well, most of the
routines aren't big enough to deserve a library.
Joe Wingbermuehle
http://www.usmo.com/~joewing/
-----Original Message-----
From: Linus Akesson <lairfight@softhome.net>
To: Joe Wingbermuehle <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 1:05 PM
Subject: 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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>