Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:57:07 +0000, Udo Kuhnt wrote:
Hi Udo,
>> Sure, I never get steamed up over this kind of thing, each one is
>> entitled to his own view. However, since I've rewritten the whole
>> of core.exe, I think I know what I'm talking about. I'd say the fact that
>> my core gives over 100K more free memory and is ca. 40% faster is proof
>> enough that the old core is rather less than optimized.
> there is a reason why optimization is normally the last step in
> developing a program, since it can get in the way. I already told you
Yes, I agree. However, some programs really never stop developing
(eg. your DOS), so a time comes to stop and optimize what is there.
And, IMHO, one optimizes and debugs before a port always.
> that some of the optimizations you did in your core probably make it
> incompatible with my DPMI support, and cutting out the Linux code (and
That's spectulation. I suspect it could be easier to add DPMI to my
core, but we'll never know until you try it. As to Linux, a comptent
programmer could advise me how much of that needs to be restored, but for
4 1/2 years I have not had to trip over it. I suspect that most of it
would need to be redone from scratch anyway. IMO the 'linglue' method
of porting is not such a good idea.
> IIRC also code for older graphics cards) does not help with maintaining
> compatibility, either.
I think realisticaly we no longer need CGA, EGA.
> Sure, if you like changing your core back and forward all the time.
Not 'all the time' however sometimes changes need to be undone, that's
part of life.
I just wish you'd try my stuff and see first hand what you think of it
rather than speculate.
Regards,
Ray Andrews
.
-- Arachne;A3;1d
Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --