[Virtualacorn-list] Enhancing the RISC OS experience

[Vince M Hudd]

"David J. Ruck" <druck at druck.org.uk> wrote:
> Vince M Hudd wrote:
> > ralph_valmai at ntlworld.com wrote:

[...]

> > > > such a feature would have either incompatibilities or limited
> > > > functionality for people running on native hardware
 
> So? That's called progress, which there has been pitiful little of in
> recent years, hence the state we are in.

Quite right - and, of course, that is why so many people are writing
software that takes advantage of Select features, isn't it?

Oh, hang on... most aren't, are they?
 
> > Having more than one version of a module means incompatibilities would
> > slip in, and appear as bugs,
 
> Only if being implemented by complete muppets. People are running RISC OS
> apps on a variety of different OS versions, and with a huge variance of
> module versions without any problems in the vast majority of cases.

Yes, but that's where the "huge variance of module versions" are (say)
SuchAndSuch Module v1.12, 1.13, 1.14 ... 1.38 - newer versions than an app
that needs 1.12 is RMEnsuring.

The different versions mentioned above are a version running on ARM (for
those on native hardware), and a version running on x86 (for those on the
emulator)
 
> > although I imagine that using GCC (which I don't personally use) should
> > mean that the same sources can be used for all versions[1], so that
> > might negate the issue.

> That's completely irrelevant.

If you say so. I assume your point is that (say) someone could write a
module in ARM assembler, and an x86 equivalent - meaning they'll have to
update both when they update one - and be absolutely certain that no
mistakes will be made.

And all for the 50p and a packet of ready salted crisps they earn as RISC OS
developers.
 
[...]
 
> Vince, you've obviously got no knowledge of the VRPC SDK.

You're right. I didn't even know there WAS a VRPC SDK (other than something
kept internal to the VA developer(s)).

[...]
  
-- 
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software