Re: A86: Libraries and Loaders

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

Re: A86: Libraries and Loaders

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, B. Nagel wrote:

> Well, I really think the one function library is a good idea, but
> unfortunatly, its cooler to say "libraries" than "external functions" so
> some one will eventually end up making a loader that does libraries and
> single function libs would become obsolete.

But it's not just a matter of coolness; some functions _belong_ together.
It's not a big deal to enable libraries to contain more than one function.
Is there something specific that bothers you about allowing libraries to
hold more than one function?


> Yeah, and some people will end up making their own loaders ("A86()"),
> this is really messy.


Let's step back for a minute and view the issue as though we were two of
the other 40 people on this list (who are probably pretty amused by our
conversation).  I say that it's a bad idea to integrate shell and loader
because people may want to change the standard.  You say that it's a bad
idea to separate shell and loader because people may want to change the
standard.
Well, it seems that we're debating something we agree upon (which is what
should amuse everyone else).  So, we had better find other grounds on
which to decide this issue.

A. Do we agree that someone will only attempt to overthrow a standard if
it doesn't allow him to do something that he wants to do?  After all, if
the standard works great, there's no reason to try to change it, right?

B. In light of this, do we agree that two important features of a standard
are versatility and upgradability--versatility to cover what most people 
want, and upgradability to cover what a few people invent later on?

C. Finally, do we now agree that separation of the shell and loader is
both more versatile and more upgradable than integration?  
   i) Separation allows shell and loader to develop independently.  As
      long as the interface between the shell and the loader is standard,
      anyone can program a shell to do pretty much whatever he wants in
      terms of displaying the names.  This is versatility.
  ii) Similarly, if we are moved to revise the program format standard
      sometime in the far future, then a change to the loader could take
      place independently of all the shells in existence, because the
      interface between the two (e.g. A86(), or whatever) would remain.
      This is upgradability.


> Its a bad idea to separate them, you gotta think into the future,
> someone will eventually make up a more advanced loader that won't be
> "standard"

And what would happen?  If we used a combined shell-loader, everyone
would have to make new shell-loader programs for the upgraded standard.
If the two were separate, then only a new loader would be required.
That's the beauty of separation.

----------

Do you want to take this discussion private for a while?  Since we're
getting no feedback from the other subscribers, maybe we should talk
man-to-man until one of us backs down :)

Real-time would be useful... how about a phone call, or a private IRC
channel?  (My wallet prefers the latter.)

--------
Dan Eble (mailto:eble@cis.ohio-state.edu)
         (http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~eble)
References: