|
|
 | | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| (...) Ok, but why? Again, if you're just having fun, go for it, but don't expect it to be useful. Personally, the current interface is simple and highly functional, and a change to a file paradigm would just make it more complicated with no benefit. (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| (...) But also for luis, it's not just about performance, it's about interface. of course there's always hack value, but it also might be useful. like many people would expect printf() or write() to stdout instead of cputs(). i don't think there's a (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| (...) for the output device thing, the lcd isn't the only device. sensors and motors are also can be implemented as files. (...) well it's still just an idea, maybe the fork() will turn out as rfork(). doesn't really matter now. but see my other (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| Yeah. I have to agree with Ross. Increased unix-ness would be nice, but additional complexity with no actual performance gain most definitely is not. That said, like the remote patch that I'll post sometime this weekend, I'll take patches for (...) (26 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| (...) Well, as someone else has said in this thread, if you're doing it for fun, or to learn more about memory management / file systems, etc, then got for it. But I wouldn't expect much of it to be included in the official versions - you've got to (...) (26 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
