Re: SD: Basic shells

To: shell-developers@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: SD: Basic shells
From: TurboSoft@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:15:39 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: shell-developers@lists.ticalc.org
In a message dated 97-11-25 01:56:46 EST, you write:

<< I think what you are referring to are the Aurora program that somebody
made
 for the 83 and 86.  This is NOT a basic program but is really an ASM
 program with some icons that represent other ASM programs that you can run
 from there.  Most people prefer straight-forward programs that just have a
 title with no icon, since icons just take up precious space that could be
 used for other purposes.  Also, shells would just get larger if programmers
 incorporated icons into their programs or shells.  As it has been
 previously been stated, you just can't have a Basic GUI that would work.
 Also, Win95 was designed around a mouse type of interface.  I personally
 would NEVER use a shell that required my mouse, and the arrow keys are a
 really crude substitute for a mouse pointer.  So, you are basically cut
 down to a simple interface that does the same thing as current shells (use
 the arrows to select a program and then press enter).  Although the look
 might be different, you would have the same basic ideas in the shell as in
 plain shells.  Since most people would be concerned about space and
 compatibility, they would choose a smaller, plainer shell over a Win95-like
 shell.  Just my opinion. >>

lt depends.  Even though assembly shells are small and quick l see no point
to having them if all that they really do is just make a list of programs on
the calculator and run them too.  for example on the 86 all l have to do is
just go to the catalog and put Asm( in front of the assembly program, or
 LCust(1,"Asm(zttr"  to place the assembly program into my custom menu for
quick accessibility.  That's my opinion.  l agree that Basic "shells" are
comparably much slower and bigger but if you want more stuff and have a lot
of avaliable memory then that is the way to go.