Hi Robert, On 26 Feb 2022, at 12:21, Robert Riebisch via Svardos-users wrote: > Hi Carsten, > >> a) >> >> I've done "C" development on Unix/Linux and OS/2 (back in the days), >> but so far never on DOS (I did Assembly, Turbo-Pascal, Forth, and an >> obscure but great C-like language called "FAST!"). > > Is this Peter Campbell/Bruce Axten's FAST, which is under GNU GPL since > 2017? yes. Having FAST under GPL would be great. Do you know where I can find it? A search with all my favourite search engines did not show any useful results. I've been in short contact with Peter Campbell around 25 years ago and registered the shareware version of the compiler. > >> I like lean and fast tools on DOS. From you experience, should I code >> against the C-Library, or code the necessary I/O directly via BIOS >> calls? > > I have no experiences with C libraries to share. > BIOS is usually very slow. Most programmers would manipulate video RAM > directly. > Sometimes, using BIOS calls can be enabled for compatibility. I would not use libraries for Screen-IO, more for disk IO. I will do screen IO directly (maybe with a compatibility fallback to BIOS if needed) > >> My initial reflect is to skip the C-Library for performance and code-space reasons. > > That's okay. > >> b) >> >> I dislike waiting for programs, even on retro machines. I have the >> idea to build the program based on an internal event/command loop, where >> the user can "type ahead" or "cancel the current action" of the program >> while the program is still "working" (reading directory entries, reading >> a file). > > Ok > >> As a bonus, the event/command loop would make the tool "scriptable", >> as the event queue can be pre-loaded at startup time. The event queue >> content will be binary, and the tool itself will not contain a >> parser/compiler for the batch command language, but that could be an >> external tool creating binary "command" files that can be used to >> "script" file systems tasks. > > Um, sounds interesting, but would it still be a "*Simple* File > Browser/Manager" then? > I need *some* motivation when writing code, and that is usually doing something that I haven't done before. >> It might be even possible to write a simple installer using this tool. >> Or to "record" a set of actions into a macro that can be stored and >> re-activated later. >> >> (this idea is based on a DOS tool I've written and used from 1992 to >> 1998 under DOS and OS/2 to automate unattended installations for some >> larger customers) > > Siemens? Sparkasse? ;-) DG Bank and R+V Versicherung > >> Would such functions be desirable? > > As I said before, it sounds interesting, but from my understanding it > contradicts "simple". I interpreted the *simple* attribute from the users point of view, not from the code pov. > > What I had in mind, was a tool for DOS novices to be included as core > package. Just to navigate the file systems, read some docs, and probably > install a more advanced file manager, maybe like what you described > above, for daily use. > I'll make a proof of concept and than we can decide where to go. Greetings Carsten -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 858 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.osdn.me/mailman/archives/svardos-users/attachments/20220318/ffdd960a/attachment.sig>
