Re: SD: Basic shells

To: shell-developers@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: SD: Basic shells
From: ADAMMAN106@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:13:22 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: shell-developers@lists.ticalc.org

In a message dated 97-11-26 00:00:28 EST, you write:

> 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.

...for example on the 82 and 85 you need a shell.  It is *REQUIRED*.  If it's
something that always has to be on your calculator, you want it small.  This
is how I see it.

~Adamman