Re: [cc65] Re: some patches

From: Ullrich von Bassewitz <>
Date: 2010-03-22 18:00:50
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.



Ullrich von Bassewitz                        
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to 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