----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" <jugg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:40 AM Subject: [shell-coding] Re: howto talk to lsapi.dll (or any other dll)? > 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... Or perhaps "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to reboot it". =P The evolution of LiteStep is certainly a, well, "open-ended" process to say the least. Most of us in the user camp seem to be managing fine, regardless of any master design, or lack thereof, in that process. Your post makes me wonder a bit though about what LS would or could be if someone or (ones) decided to chuck backward compatibility out the window, and tried to capture all that is good about the shell using a new, consistent, and planned structure. Would this be a good thing, or would it stifle growth a bit? Is anyone trying to do that as we speak, but perhaps we just aren't hearing much about it (for obvious reasons =)? And what's Mudi up to these days, anyway? Ah well, just another late night post-wine rambling... enjoyed your little rant though. Food for thought. =) __________________________________________________ Subscription options and archive: http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding