Re: A86: Re: TI's ROM Sux

To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A86: Re: TI's ROM Sux
From: Bryan Rittmeyer <bryanr@flash.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 11:03:45 -0400
Delivered-To: assembly-86-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
References: <cef481e.359b2ee9@aol.com>
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org

I'm sorry about the tone of my past e-mails.. I'm not trying
to complain so much as I am trying to figure out why they
chose to handle calculator to calculator communications the
way they did. And, for the record, I talked to Mel Tsai on
IRC last night and he seemed pretty certain that jp and jr
execute in the same amount of time. Whatever the case, I
don't see how dumping the ROM of my own calculator and
disassembling it is a felony. I bought the calculator,
and the ROM is part of that calculator...

I agree that I've been crying like a baby, and I'm sorry
about the tone of my past posts. I'm just getting pretty
annoyed with the TI link port. Whatever they did on the 92
works a lot better than the code on the 8X... :-\

TGaArdvark@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Dude, stop complaining about TI's ROM.  My opinion is that
> you don't have a right to complain unless you already wrote
> a better one.  And I strongly doubt anyone here could claim
> that.  If pointing out bugs has any affect on our job (asm
> programming), then saying it is justified.  But complaining
> about jp/jr (especially when TI already explained why they did
> it) is definitely not right.  How would you feel if everyone picked
> on your code like that?  Anyway, last time I checked, it was a
> felony (in the US) to even know whether they used jp or jr.

-- 
Bryan Rittmeyer
mailto:bryanr@flash.net
http://www.bridges.edu/horizon/

Follow-Ups:

Re: A86: Re: TI's ROM Sux

From: Dux Gregis <assets@eden.rutgers.edu>

References:

Re: A86: Re: TI's ROM Sux

From: TGaArdvark@aol.com