Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell

To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
From: Daniel7073@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:30:41 EST
Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

In a message dated 11/13/1998 1:33:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
TurboSoft@aol.com writes:

> but most programs only use two or three libraries, which means for one game
>  you might have to have 12000 bytes of one big library instead of the
smaller
>  files.
>  

However, there would probably be other programs that use the other libraries,
so unless you only load one assembly game onto your calc, it would probably be
worth it.
The only space saved would be for the headers of each library (not much).
However, it would probably be easier for people new to assembly to upload the
libraries and get them to work right.  Maybe I'll produce a library FAQ
sometime.

Another problem is that if a library was upgraded, all the subroutine
locations would change.  This could be fixed by using a function table:
lib@0001: bra drawfunc
lib@0002: bra erasefunc
and so on.  The disadvantages to this would be a slightly larger library, and
speed would be minutely slower.

Also, if someone created their own library, then there would be two libraries
until the new one was integrated into the large library.  After that, all the
programs using the new library would have to be recompiled for the main
library.  I know that sounds a little confusing.  If anyone doesn't understand
it, tell me and I'll try to explain it clearer.

There are advantages and disadvantages each way, but I think I would prefer
multiple libraries.