On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:38:22AM +0100, Oliver Schmidt wrote: > In all programs was never an option from my perspective! I was only > arguing for two libraries instead of many: One library without and one > with loadable disk I/O driver support. > > The reasoning behind that was just another perspective on the same > issue you brought up: How many users are out there for a certain > speedup solution? Probably few. Therefore a program author won't > create n variants of his application. But if he doesn't hit the RAM > barrier he might just link against the library with loadable disk I/O > driver support. Then the users could grab the driver for their > solution from somewhere or implement it on their own. That may be right, but these two approaches are really different. And maintaining an additional solution is quite some work. > Or to put it in other words. If every single speedup solution doesn't > create enough momentum to be support by cc65 then maybe the sum of all > of them does. I'm not trying to convince at any price - I just want to > make my point clear... As you do know, I'm not even able to cope with the current workload in a timely manner. This alone is a strong argument against another construction site within cc65. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Mar 22 18:00:57 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-03-22 18:00:59 CET