[shell-coding] Re: howto talk to lsapi.dll (or any other dll)?

--
Filter this to /dev/null if you do not wish to read some pointless soap box
commentary.  And for you news posting types, what I say on this list, I
would like it if it stayed on this list, unless I have said otherwise.
Thanks.  (not that this is news worthy, but more as a general comment for
me) anyhoo...
--


can you feel the love? Message? Maduin?  :]

Let's face it, you're both talking about "fixing" a broken down piece of
software built ontop of a chaotic implementation which stemmed from a 'fun
idea', and has now undergone four years of coding by dozens of hackers who
had no more structure beyond their whim of the moment.  Such is the nature
of these things.

I'm not saying you can't do cool things with Litestep obviously (it is a
cool shell and concept - just poorly structured).  But with such a large
user base, it only makes sense to maintain backwards compatibility, but
because of how it was made (I won't even try to use the word 'designed'),
backwards compatibility means lots of legacy code and that means
fundamentally never progressing.  *shrug*   That is true of PureLS as
well... sure I've rewritten all of the PureLS code from the ground up, but
it still is based around a poor structure, and so never will get passed the
'hackers' tool level.  (which is fine with me, I don't want it to be
anything more)  But Litestep seems to always aim at being targeted for the
masses, and it just isn't going to happen.  Stardock did what it took to be
for the masses, it married MS and does things the 'MS Way' - which makes
sense, because it all runs on a MS OS anyway...

Enough soap boxing...  I'm just coming down off of a coding session of an
extremely well architected design (project at work), and decided to look at
the PureLS code and got pissed off at all of the crappy design
implementations I had to choose because of ANSI C limitations and Litestep
legacy "features" and obscure MS shell support issues.  Thus this soap box
email :)

On the positive side, Litestep will always be what someone wants it to be.
Because it is so free form, you can add any function api you want, any time
you want, and it doesn't matter.  Just as long as your addition has enough
popularity to survive the yearly rewrite. *chuckle*

So, this is supposed to be a shell coding discussion list, right?  I suppose
the discussion of the philosophy of shell coding is on topic? heh.  Sorry to
those who don't give a h00t about Litestep, and it's design issues.  But
those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... or something
like that  :)   Anyway, a real coding question to follow...

chris


----- Original Message -----
From: <Bgvinyard@xxxxxxx>
To: <shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 5:11 AM
Subject: [shell-coding] Re: howto talk to lsapi.dll (or any other dll)?


> In a message dated 7/26/2002 1:38:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kschaffe@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > At least I've actually added some new function to the
> >  core. Unlike you and Headius who constantly rewrote
> >  stuff without adding any substance.
> >
> >  --
> >  Maduin
> >
>
> Ah yes I remember that part... no word for a month or two, then all of a
> sudden new code showing up in cvs without talking to the rest of teh
> developers... and I guess our definitions of substance differ... I cant
see
> any real substance in the logging code...
>
> Anyway enough of bantering the rest of the mailing list with this...
>
> Message


--
ActivatorMail(tm) ver.061902 Scanned for all viruses by 
www.activatormail.com intelligent anti-virus anti-spam service


__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding

Other related posts: