Re: A85: Re: Ticalc bias

To: <assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A85: Re: Ticalc bias
From: "Donna S. Zimmerman" <gramdon@mail2.theonramp.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:09:12 -0500
Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org

What is the point? I know many people want to have a smaller shell, but at
what cost? There are people who use Usgard, Z-shell, or Rigel, and so on.
There are games that only work on them, but not the other, so why have
people port games twenty times to twenty different shells when there are
some very well written shells out there in the first place.

Jeff Zimmerman
gramdon@mail2.theonramp.net


> Excuse me! 
> I am trying to reduce shell size to as small as possible.  So far, I have
> gotten down to about 400 bytes, with ZShell 4.0 compatibility, but with
no
> checksum recalculation.  If you don't like that, go jump off a cliff.  I
just
> don't have any easy way to upload it to ticalc. 
>  
> I am not very good at game writing anyway, unless there is a good input
> routine, like in basic.  I would write a rocking tank wars type game, but
I
> don't have a single good input routine.  If someone could find the input
ROM
> calls, it would help immensely, but untill then, I am a shell writer. 
> -Richard Lewis (Minute Man #1)

Follow-Ups:

Re: A85: Re: Ticalc bias

From: mgp4007@omega.uta.edu (Michael Pearce)