This is an archived, read-only copy of the United-TI subforum , including posts and topic from May 2003 to April 2012. If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this forum, you can visit Cemetech's
Your Projects subforum. Some of these topics may also be directly-linked to active Cemetech topics. If you are a Cemetech member with a linked United-TI account, you can link United-TI topics here with your current Cemetech topics.
Project Ideas/Start New Projects =>
Your Projects
| Author |
Message |
|
Brazucs
I have no idea what my avatar is.
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 3349
|
 Posted: 06 Feb 2006 06:46:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ... who are almost as equally important as the coders (minus a degree of magnitude). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alexrudd
pm me if you read this
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 2335
|
| Posted: 06 Feb 2006 07:01:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brazucs wrote: No, I don't... nevermind my ramblings about asm  I thought it was somehow changeable when leofox said: leofox wrote: Assembly? That doesnt have to be 'built in'.
I won't try to help with that stuff anymore, then. I'll stick with concept. [post="69125"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
threefingeredguy
Advanced Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 479
|
| Posted: 06 Feb 2006 07:19:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Basic should be built-in. What you should do is have a new basic and the old basic. Old basic programs will need an OLD BASIC identifier to send to the parser and a NEW BASIC identifier. That way all programs will be compatible with each other. You could run newbasic subprograms from oldbasic programs. This could also help ensure that old basic programs could run at the old speed and that newbasic programs can run at the improved speed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rezek
Better Than You
Calc Guru
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: 06 Feb 2006 09:28:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brazucs wrote: Rezek wrote: *points at OS Replacement thread at DS for the 1000'th time*
Also, Brazucs: Do you even know assembly  . Because (a) You can't modify assembly or change it. An OS *has* to be written in it, and Assembly is already built-in as it's hardware (not really, simple explanation), you just need something to call it (execute it). Ti83plus.inc is just a bunch of equates, so "building" it in in the sence of executing TI-OS asm would mean replicating BCalls and the entire interface.
No, I don't... nevermind my ramblings about asm I thought it was somehow changeable when leofox said: leofox wrote: Assembly? That doesnt have to be 'built in'.
I think you thought Leofox meant assembly was suppliable by a plugin and not neccessary. Given in that context I understand what you meant  . What Leofox's post meant was that assembly is auto-in there, you can't add it or remove it (i.e it doesn't need being built in)
@Leofox: I know that, I meant you'd have to have some support for it in terms of routines, etc. Or at least something to call it.
Last edited by Guest on 07 Feb 2006 01:40:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
