Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??

Arseniy Khobotkov wrote:
> 
> 82nd Deer wrote:
> 
> > each file, plus the simple agony of doing something like this.  People are
> > barely competent to load one of 10 different libraries, but when 100 show
> > up people would lose their minds.  Rigel is rather nice, it would be
> 
>         As I pointed out, only the programmer would have to worry about the
> many libraries (If one can call them libraries, a more accurate name
> would be functions).  The non-assembly-literate user would not even know
> that the libraries are there.  All he (or she) would have to do is unzip
> a certain file into the libs directory (or something similar). After
> that, all that the user would have to do is select the programs he wants
> on his calculator in a certain computer program, and receive a backup
> file with the functions already in it (grouped into a single 85s file).
> That is much faster than actually transporting 10 different large
> libraries, seperately,  using the link program as one has to do now.
> Right now, libraries are loaded by the users.  As I propose, the
> computer would handle collecting all the functions into a library and
> attaching it to the porgrams.  Unlike people, the computer does not care
> how many libraries are needed.  (And technically there would only be one
> customized library - there would just be a choice of 100 functions that
> can be in it).

Well, it's a good idea, but I have some complaints, if you will.  First
of all, if libraries are used only as they should be this is really
unnecessary.  I really don't forsee people releasing a library with say
about 10 different miscellaneous functions that only a handful of
programs will actually use.  Secondly, your method doesn't allow one to
transfer programs via calculator to calculator.  In fact, now that I
think about it, it won't work at all.  Because, if you group all of the
functions into one single .85s file, how will the programs that use them
know where in the group file the functions reside.  Believe me, it
simply won't work.  I think we are too worried about dynamic-link
libraries being effective.  In fact they don't have to be used at all
(think of DLLs as just an option for programming;  they're there to be
used if needed).  Maybe they should be used only in clear cut cases that
will produce good results.  Windows (though maybe not the best OS)
manages to effectively use DLLs.

Ben
References: