Omnimaga
Calculator Community => TI Calculators => TI-BASIC => Topic started by: TheCoder1998 on December 23, 2013, 10:02:33 am
-
yeah why?
together with xlib and celticIII it has a huge potential!
the gui could be awesome for math programs
what do you guys think of it?
-
Because most people out there rather find xLib and MirageOS than DoorsCS.
So yeah, i did play a bit around wiht the DCS GUI lib, and it is pretty awesome :)
-
I always found the mouse based gui more of a nice proof of concept than super handy but that could be just me
-
- DoorsCS is (was) too big for French people with a regular 83+ (160KB of Flash, with 16KB taken by French language and 16KB taken by the Periodic table, you can guess that DoorsCS is (was) hard to fit in with some programs)
- A lot of people read readmes where it's written "Ion compatible shell", then download Ion
- A lot of people read readmes where it's written "Ion compatible shell like MirageOS", then download MirageOS
- A lot of people don't read readmes where it's written "needs DoorsCS for the GUI" and will just think "dat game sux" and review it bad so coders try to avoid dependancies
- And that last argument is only my opinion but I prefer zStart to DoorsCS so I use it instead, and that prevents me from using DoorsCS's GUI.
-
i know i said this earlier but i can use dcs alongside zstart just fine
maybe you should change some of zstarts settings?
-
i know i said this earlier but i can use dcs alongside zstart just fine
maybe you should change some of zstarts settings?
I know that, but it is not the problem. I just don't want to "waste" 49152 bytes for a GUI that I could (re)code in my programs for less than 1000 bytes. Moreover, using DoorsCS would prevent my friends from using my program due to the lack of memory (they don't have the new 83+.fr USB).
-
oh okay i understand ;D(http://www.omnimaga.org/Themes/default/images/gpbp_arrow_up.gif)
EDIT: i've made a program for trigonometry using the DCS gui
it is in dutch but if there is demand for it i could make a translated version
-
The GUI can be pretty handy if you happen to use xLIB and Celtic too, as it will shrink down your program size while not forcing you to install Celtic, plus you can then run ASM programs. But yeah, this can be problematic for those who don't play games or only want to use one program, especially if they have the older 83+ like we have in North America.
Also, over here a lot of people prefer to create their own GUIs anyway.
-
... for a GUI that I could (re)code in my programs for less than 1000 bytes.
Excuse me ? You saying that shows that you didn't take a good look to the GUI API. Don't talk about something if you don't know it. Take a look at all of these functions and tell me if you can do any better with Axe than Kerm did with ASM :
http://dcs.cemetech.net/index.php/Developers%27_SDK
-
I don't see where I stated that I would recode all the functions that the GUI offers in 1000 bytes. Of course my program would be limited to the functions I need. But I don't even think that would be a problem because I personally think (and it seems that aeTIos thinks that too) that the mouse is beautiful but annoying. And with a lot of simplifications (like no windows on top of others (so no complicated stack system), which "never" happens in a program anyway or you only have 2 of them and you can find a workaround (like a simple RecallPic)), yeah, I can have my GUI (and once again, not the real GUI) in less than 1000 bytes.
It is the same reason why I use zStart, not because it does all what DoorsCS do, just that it does what I need in less space (and does it faster), and no more.
-
i just don't use the acceleration function with the mouse, it makes it run smoother for me ;D
-
Many of the GUI functions DCS provides are quite awesome indeed - but like Hayleia pointed out, you can simply code those yourself depending on your needs. And I still don't like to use any shell at all - imho I think that a mouse/cursor system and a calc don't fit together. I don't see any advantage if having a mousecursor when you don't have a mouse or a touchpad attached (unless you own Kerm's ultimate calc). It is rather annoying and slow.
Other shells still have to be launched as an app to work - and when you run them on power on, you need to exit them when you want to do some calculations. I might be a fusspot but every button click you can save is worth saving it. So the only shell to fulfill these needs is zStart:: you can still use the good old program menu and run your asm programs without fiddling around in the catalog - and it provides other developers features I can't imagine things without.
I know we're talking about two different things right here - but DCS and its GUI belong together imo and needing multiple apps (a shell for executing and organizing - and a library for your graphics stuff) simply take a lot of your valuable memory.
On the other hand, since Axe became that popular, the number of TI-Basic programmers dropped and therefore TI-Basic libs cease with them.
-
Actually in DCS's defense, you can also run programs from the home screen too.
-
Actually in DCS's defense, you can also run programs from the home screen too.
True - I don't want to do DCS down - it's only my opinion. Why would someone put a 49k app (compared to zStart's 16k) on his calc when he doesn't come close to needing all the functionality. The idea of having a single app that combines the functionality of many other libs and shells - and adding more, like a GUI - is great as such, but I simply find memory more valuable when I think of all the stuff I don't need. Therefore I simply don't have DCS on my calc and thus I don't program anything that uses its libraries.
There might be people out there for who DSC is just the right thing, but I don't belong to those.
-
Well, I thought about it, and I can basically sum up why I don't use libraries in two points:
- I don't like to have dependencies (especially when the dependency is bigger than my program)
- I get a sense of pride from writing my own routines
It really all comes down to the fact that I want to be able to deliver a single file to people that will run all by itself. I'm ok with requiring a shell to run because almost all asm games do, but I don't want people to have to install a specific shell.
Also, a reason people may not want to use the DCS GUI libs is because they want to remain 100% basic. I mean, if you're going to use DCS for your GUI, why stop there? Why not go full on and make a completely hybrid asm/basic game? I think it's the idea of not using any asm resources that keeps people away from the GUI.
-
Actually in DCS's defense, you can also run programs from the home screen too.
True - I don't want to do DCS down - it's only my opinion. Why would someone put a 49k app (compared to zStart's 16k) on his calc when he doesn't come close to needing all the functionality. The idea of having a single app that combines the functionality of many other libs and shells - and adding more, like a GUI - is great as such, but I simply find memory more valuable when I think of all the stuff I don't need. Therefore I simply don't have DCS on my calc and thus I don't program anything that uses its libraries.
There might be people out there for who DSC is just the right thing, but I don't belong to those.
I know, and I respect it. :) I also think you have some good points, especially size-wise. DCS is a shell for a group of people and it really depends of people's needs, kinda like Mirage back then. Mirage was small, but unfortunately it crashes a lot on newer OSes and calcs, so now Zstart is more handy for those people. I myself prefer DCS since I need its xLIB/Celtic/Omnicalc, Homerun and Ion/Mos compatibility, but of course someone who don't need the Basic libs will inevitably prefer Zstart. :)
Well, I thought about it, and I can basically sum up why I don't use libraries in two points:
- I don't like to have dependencies (especially when the dependency is bigger than my program)
- I get a sense of pride from writing my own routines
It really all comes down to the fact that I want to be able to deliver a single file to people that will run all by itself. I'm ok with requiring a shell to run because almost all asm games do, but I don't want people to have to install a specific shell.
Also, a reason people may not want to use the DCS GUI libs is because they want to remain 100% basic. I mean, if you're going to use DCS for your GUI, why stop there? Why not go full on and make a completely hybrid asm/basic game? I think it's the idea of not using any asm resources that keeps people away from the GUI.
Yeah in my case, I prefer to write everything rather than use libs, but of course when it comes to stuff impossible to do in BASIC and the fact I don't want to code ASM, then I have no choice. :P
-
If I may throw in my two cents:
I don't use external libs/GUIs (other than Axioms that work for Axe compiled to nostub asm) because I use appvars for pretty much everything, and archive them. I just don't have room for DCS unless I'm not working on a project :I
-
Note that all those arguments I (and others) used don't apply to the CSE because
- There is enough space to put DoorsCS three times and still have space for programs
- It's the only available shell for now so no one has another one (maybe people don't have it but just state that in the readme)
- There is no annoying mouse
- There is no zStart (thepenguin77, if you read this... :P jk, I know you already talked about that)
And I also found another argument why there are not so many programs using that GUI. Just because DoorsCS is "new". Well, it is not recent, but still the latest shell (zStart is not only a shell) so it is normal that a lot of programs, especially those made before it arrived, were made without using its GUI.
-
Also the CSE version of DCS got rid of the mouse and gCn support, since Kerm wanted to focus on the most used features for the time being. Some forms of xLIB and Celtic are available, though. But yeah size isn't an issue due to 3.5 MB of archive, plus due to the larger sprite data, most complex games will be three times larger than DCSE itself anyway. :P
-
well i don't frequently code in basic, but if i do, i like to have the capabilities of making a windows styled program.
i got a ti84+SE so i don't have to worry about not having enough space for my programs. so i can understand somebody wouldn't like to have an 4 page app of which 3 aren't necessary.
-
well my question is answered, so i'm locking this post
thanks for the replies guys ;D
EDIT: it turns out i can't lock this post so i haven't done that :P
-
- DoorsCS is (was) too big for French people with a regular 83+ (160KB of Flash, with 16KB taken by French language and 16KB taken by the Periodic table, you can guess that DoorsCS is (was) hard to fit in with some programs)
- A lot of people read readmes where it's written "Ion compatible shell", then download Ion
- A lot of people read readmes where it's written "Ion compatible shell like MirageOS", then download MirageOS
- A lot of people don't read readmes where it's written "needs DoorsCS for the GUI" and will just think "dat game sux" and review it bad so coders try to avoid dependancies
- And that last argument is only my opinion but I prefer zStart to DoorsCS so I use it instead, and that prevents me from using DoorsCS's GUI.
I had a Ti-83+ (SE I think) bought in Quebec back in the day and I installed Doors and a couple of programs with no problem on it, so that argument of *you had no space left on a French calculator* seems incorrect to me.
-
My argument does apply to the regular 83+ with 160 KB of Flash. Your 83+SE has 1.5MB and I was not talking about this one.
-
Yeah the 83+SE had the same amount of FLash as the 84+SE. On the TI-83 Plus (black model) and on the 2009 incarnation of the TI-83 Plus.Fr, Doors CS takes 30% of the entire archive (even more than most games). It isn't a problem on the new TI-83 Plus.Fr that had an USB port added, because those have 1.5 MB of Flash like the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition.
Btw LunarFire don't you think it sucks that the TI-83 Plus.Fr USB was never released in Quebec? <_< (Instead, they gave us an old TI-83 Plus with Français pre-installed on it, the regular 84+ costs $20 more and the 84+SE is discontinued. Ok we have the color one but still, in France they now get the TI-84+SE (renamed to TI-83 Plus.Fr USB) for the price of a regular 83+ )
-
Yeah, that sucked. I remember wiring a little circuit to interface between the calculator IO port and a parallel port on an old computer to transfer stuff on my calculator. I don't think any of my PCs have a parallel port anymore. TI calculators are overpriced anyway, I could probably make a calculator that emulates a TI-83 (I mean an OS running the TI-OS) and sell it under 30 bucks.
I do not have any calculator at the moment, but I'll make sure to pick up one with a USB port soon, maybe the TI84+C SE, so that I get into calc programming with you guys when I'm bored. I won't buy it in store thought, probably order it online from Ebay or Amazon or someplace like that.
-
Yeah I would recommend an online store, because at Staples and Future Shop the regular price is $149.99-159.99. There are $119.99-129.99 sales at the start of school year but I bet you could find a cheaper one on Amazon or Ebay (although beware of high shipping fees).
-
Do not worry, I know what to look for when shopping online for stuff. I always check price + shipping to make sure I don't pay 50$+ shipping on a 20$ item.
On this, I think we should either get back on topic, or let it sink if there is nothing else to add on it.