CompuServe Thread

Forum unknown · Programming

Wishlist for Workbench

5 messages in this thread
#130621From: Ben BlishJun 20, 1988 1:23 AM
Request: rewrite the ARP commands in c, release the source OR sell the ARP package instead of giving it away, stop doing whatever it is that upsets the FFS so much. –Ben–
#130916From: Charlie HeathJun 21, 1988 6:55 AM
Gee, where have I heard that "rewrite the ARP commands in C" before? Somebody else is welcome to… to my thinking though, the disk space saved by the assembler versions is one of the main reasons for using ARP, and my guess is going to C would wind up about breakeven with the original BCPL commands, when you include the space used by arp.library. I think whatever it was that was upsetting FFS has been fixed in the Omega release(s) of FFS. Guess I should back up my HD and try out an Omega FFS and see… …cheath
#131036From: Ben BlishJun 21, 1988 10:19 PM
All a matter of perspective, Charlie. For me, I could care less about the disk space – I care about the _memory_ space, and there ARP is a loser, for my style of machine use. I would like ARP because it has a consistant user interface (or so I understand) and as far as the C re-write goes, that's both for me, so I can easily maintain them when I find insects, and for CBM, who would probably accept ARP if it was written to be more maintainable (by which I mean in C, of course). –Ben–
#131036From: Ben BlishJun 21, 1988 10:19 PM
All a matter of perspective, Charlie. For me, I could care less about the disk space – I care about the _memory_ space, and there ARP is a loser, for my style of machine use. I would like ARP because it has a consistant user interface (or so I understand) and as far as the C re-write goes, that's both for me, so I can easily maintain them when I find insects, and for CBM, who would probably accept ARP if it was written to be more maintainable (by which I mean in C, of course). –Ben–
#130916From: Charlie HeathJun 21, 1988 6:55 AM
Gee, where have I heard that "rewrite the ARP commands in C" before? Somebody else is welcome to… to my thinking though, the disk space saved by the assembler versions is one of the main reasons for using ARP, and my guess is going to C would wind up about breakeven with the original BCPL commands, when you include the space used by arp.library. I think whatever it was that was upsetting FFS has been fixed in the Omega release(s) of FFS. Guess I should back up my HD and try out an Omega FFS and see… …cheath