Re: A89: Shell compatibility

To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A89: Shell compatibility
From: David Phillips <electrum@tfs.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:04:38 -0500
Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

Which file format is more efficient or overall better (since I haven't seen
both...)?  This exact same thing happened on the TI-82 when asm came out
for it.  There was Ash and OShell82.  And there were two sets of
programmers, each half writting for one shell or the other.  Of course, you
could only have one shell on your calc at a time due to the lack of asm
support, so you could only run half of the available programs.
Fortunately, Jason Todd, the writer of OShell82, stopped supporting it and
everyone moved to Ash.  But for a while, it was a pretty big issue.

Are we going to let the same thing happen here?  Is it possible for the
shell authors to come up with single loader and library format, much with
fargo, but allow separate interfaces?  Especially with the lack of programs
being written, it would really be bad to only be able to run half of them.

At 07:59 PM 9/24/98 +0200, you wrote:
>
>
>>I don't have a TI-89 yet, so I am just wondering how compatible these two
>>shells are.  Can someone spill it all out for us?
>
>Programs compiled for Plusshell can be run with any TI89, with or without
>Doors OS, because they have an internal loader code into the program.
>
>However their file format is really different from the one we use in Doors
>(we will release it soon), so the comment and libs list are not accessed
>the same way.
>
>Programs compiled for Doors can't be run if Doors hasn't been installed.
>They will just exit at the very beginning
>
>Hope this helps..

--
David Phillips
mailto:electrum@tfs.net
ICQ: 13811951
AOL/AIM: Electrum32

Follow-Ups:

Re: A89: Shell compatibility

From: Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>