Posted: Wed 01 Feb, 2006 8:37 pm
I agree with dys. about making the plugins as apps and keeping the OS very small, and with the basic maybe we could make it use FastRPL? That would be really nice.
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed 01 Feb, 2006 8:53 pm
Would it be possible to include a better language than basic? Possibly a language that had much more access to the operating system than the current TI basic? Or simply expand on BASIC and add that kind of functionality.
Posted: Wed 01 Feb, 2006 8:54 pm
FastRPL is just that, but right now it's an app that is huge (like4-5 pages) though it is fast!thegamefreak0134 wrote:Would it be possible to include a better language than basic? Possibly a language that had much more access to the operating system than the current TI basic? Or simply expand on BASIC and add that kind of functionality.
Posted: Wed 01 Feb, 2006 9:07 pm
Hey, that's a pretty good idea, to use FastRPL 
It's been under development for a while, so it's less work to implement it, and it would seem an improvement over Ti-Basic.
But I think that could be done...
It's been under development for a while, so it's less work to implement it, and it would seem an improvement over Ti-Basic.Make that a FAT, a CLI, the FastRPL thingy and some REALLY basic math things (just rip a few from the API to make the command line calculate things like "45*24+4"). Executing assembly programs is no work at all, unless you want to support the old programs, then you'd have to make them execute from progstart ($926.. something?) and put all the old romcalls in placedysfunction wrote:So say you start out with nothing more than a file browser, BASIC program executor, executor for nostub assembly programs, and the basic math functions.
But I think that could be done...
Posted: Wed 01 Feb, 2006 9:15 pm
Now we're getting somewhere! We're calling that Core Design Principle, although I believe I've heard the phrase before somewhere.dysfunction wrote:Yes, I very much agree. I know you are intending on a lightweight OS, but I like the idea of plugins. Perhaps you could use Apps as these plugins, but within the OS allow Apps to integrate with the OS to a far greater degree than the TI-OS. This way you can have a lightweight base (think the linux base kernel) but be able to add on as extra features and functionality as you want (think mainstream linux distros). So say you start out with nothing more than a file browser, BASIC program executor, executor for nostub assembly programs, and the basic math functions. But then you could add in plugins for a BASIC editor, advanced math suites, office suites, a package of extra BASIC commands, the assembly API, Ion/Mirage compatibility, assembly dev suites, etc.
Actually, we don't even need a BASIC and nostub executor. IMHO, that should also be a plugin. That way, a person could choose if they want TI-BASIC, NewBasic (or whatever it'll be called), or any user-made languages. Libraries might also come into play.
Posted: Wed 01 Feb, 2006 9:32 pm
It's just that the size of it is HUGE, for a 83+ so I thought it would be cool to have but w/e.
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 4:13 am
I am not sure how much I like the idea...getting a os ressent was a bitch, how hard will it be to keep sending feature updates and all.
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 4:24 am
Hopefully as easy as sending normal progs and restarting the calc.
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 3:05 pm
Yes, as I have written in the discussion about NewBASIC, integrating fastRPL might be a good thing since it is already usable and quite impressive :) It would also avoid re-inventing the wheel once again
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 4:51 pm
Is tios-basic not a read only part of the calc...as in, can the basic be removed and/or fiddled wth?
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 5:01 pm
Theoretically (as TI would like us to think) no; in actuality, yes.
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 6:43 pm
I just noticed .su.cx causes problems in IE6 sometimes, so I changed the link in the first post:
http://brazucs.unitedti.org/wiki/
http://brazucs.unitedti.org/wiki/
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 9:38 pm
how much memory is devoted to it and all? 512K?
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 9:54 pm
From this and your previous post, I don't think you understand, this is an entire OS. No semblence of TI-OS will remain.
Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2006 10:04 pm
I have realised this after a little reading, I had been under the false assumption parts of the OS were hard written and I did not know that everything could be wiped out.