Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: Menus & ZMENULIB
Of course you could just look it up once, store the pointer, and use
offsets to get to a specific routine
>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Follow-Ups: