Re: A85: My problem with libraries
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: My problem with libraries
Gee i wonder if you even read any of the email. One complaint was that
you never documented you "nifty VAR routines". Anyway, I'm getting
pissed at all the flames that Usgard is so perfect so I think I'll be
leaving this list; nothing goes on but petty little complaints (yes I'm
aware this could be qualified as one)
Go ahead and update your Usgard, take out the libraries & use our
relocation methood. I knew there was no way I could get these people on
the list to use PhatOS instead of Usgard. My only request now is that
someone think about the reason for PhatOS; perhaps even give us credit
for trying.
Basically I'm giving up, the 85 just is not worth it for all the crap
that I've getting. And for all the PhatOS fans out there sorry, but
unless Ess ever documents some of his routines there is nothing really
left to do with PhatOS. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted but i guess
our little parody pissed too many people off.
Mike Baker
mbm00@hotmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________
Get your 100% usgard free life at
http://missoula.bigsky.net/oxymoron/phat
Ess Andreas wrote:
>
> Simple, Baker. You sent the source to me once... Nope, Jimmy mentioned the idea a long before. I think right after 0.95b, if not 0.9b. And, you also told me about your "Ans" idea. If I took out libraries, Usgard still had Interrupts and the nifty VAR routines...
>
> Andreas
>
> ----------
> From: Mike Baker[SMTP:mbm00@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 1997 10:13 PM
> To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: Re: A85: My problem with libraries
>
> Ess i think you're reffering to the wrong person.
> I was the one who wrote LodeRunner (how'd you see the source to know how
> crappy it was?). I know Jimmy told you about the PhatOS. I had
> meantioned the idea to him telling him it would be a good idea for
> usgard, and that i was planning on doing abit of work with it myself. (i
> can't belive he wouldn't have gave me & Martin Hock credit when he told
> you that). Yes i think that usgard is rather large and unoptimized, but
> it does have a few good features. (when i remember what they were i'll
> let you know) but the problem was that there was no documentation on the
> features so we could not add them to PhatOS. Personally I think this
> whole thing with shells has gotten abit out of hand; look at some of the
> stuff that has been said, for god's sake it's a damn calculator and not
> a gameboy.
>
> As for your comment on library support yes i do belive it should be
> removed, because not eveyone wants a huge multi routine library just to
> play one game that uses one routine; and because not everyone has one of
> those fancy expander things. A new version of Usgard without Librarys
> and with fixed location sounds good, but isn't that going to be exctaly
> like PhatOS then? if that's the case maybe we should merge the shells.
>
> My main problem with Usgard is that everyone is thinking oh it's so
> great, so perfect and all that worship crap, that write programs only
> for usgard. No I'm not pissed because they write a PhatOS only game I'm
> pissed at the thought that inorder to play that game i need to fill my
> calculator with usgard & all the libraries required for usgard AND the
> game before i can even play the game. People tell me to get a life and
> program for usgard because programs made for it are smaller. That is not
> entirely true people! Like I said by the time i get usgard & allt he
> librays on there and the game i've wasted more space than just zshell
> and that game.
>
> (btw that was a pretty cheap shot at LodeRunner don't you think?, I mean
> hey it was my first program.)
>
> Mike Baker
> mbm00@hotmail.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Get your free, Phat based OS at http://missoula.bigsky.net/oxymoron/phat
>
> Ess Andreas wrote:
> >
> > Quite a long time ago, Jimmy suggested to me a PhatOS like relocation. The problem with this are that I couldn't use neither libraries nor TSRs, but this wouldn't be too bad, as it seems. Perhaps I get around to make a new version of Usgard with fixed relocation, without libraries and TSRs and with ROM 2.0 support.
> >
> > BTW, Mike, you said "Usgard was large and imho not optimized"... Large may be true, but first take a look at your lame Loderunner source before saying that Usgard isn't optimized.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > ----------
> > From: Michael Pearce[SMTP:mikep@anet-dfw.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 1997 6:02 AM
> > To: list-zshell@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: A85: My problem with libraries
> >
> > Well, i just wanted to say the problem i am having with using
> > libraries for Usgard. Maybe they aren't problems, just complaints.
> > In my Solomon's Key game, i use 3 sprite routines. Putsprite,
> > PutSprite with transparency, and a routine to read the background from
> > the video memory. Only one of these is in a library. And
> > furthermore, i am only using 8X8 sprites. I have over 50 sprites in
> > the game right now (i think). So i am wasting 2 bytes for each sprite
> > by putting ".db 8,8" at the beginning when this should be in the
> > sprite routine itself. 2 bytes * 50 sprites = 100 additional bytes.
> > And, i need an almost 400 byte library (spritlib) of which i only use
> > less than 100 bytes (for PutSprite). I can imagine that Jimmy Mardell
> > may have also realized this. His new version of Sqrxz doesn't use the
> > Sprite Library for most likely these same reasons. But, on the other
> > hand, if Jimmy Mardell's game and my game could share the exact same
> > sprite routines (without putting ".db 8,8"), i guess that would save
> > about 200+ bytes for the sprite routines and 100 bytes for the sprites
> > themselves. So there would *possibly* be a savings of 300 bytes for
> > my game. Man, statistics are great. I can make them say whatever i
> > want! I don't know exactly what all of this is supposed to mean, but
> > i'm sure it says something to different people. It can either say
> > "WASTE, WASTE, WASTE" or it can say "SAVE, SAVE, SAVE". But at the
> > moment since there isn't a library with those 3 routines, the usage of
> > libraries is wasteful for me.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef
> > Encoding: base64
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef
> Encoding: base64
Follow-Ups:
References: