🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BtMG1E.A6D@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>But, from first example of a small TSR we got, the program was heavily
>using inline or assembly code using particularities of C to make it
>easier to program in assembly than direct assembly.  However, this is
>ASM, not HLL (high level language).  In other words, it is curious
>to need to use the lower level language to get the more (or the less
>in space occupied) from a higher level language (or isn't it natural :
>the more you know, the more you can do).

Take a look at the entry I just posted.  It's entirely in a high level 
language (Turbo Pascal), using a widely available commercial library (Object 
Professional).  The only place I bent your rules was to make a direct DOS 
call in order to release the environment segment.  It takes 160 bytes, just 
32 bytes more than the original example of a tiny TSR posted by Ralf Brown, 
and performs the same function.

If I'd been allowed to write the ISR part in inline assembler, I don't see 
any reason I couldn't have matched or beaten his record.  The advantage of 
writing in TP (or another HLL) is that the loader part is particularly 
easy to write; all the stuff I did there is commonly available "off the 
shelf".  For example, if I'd wanted to parse complicated command line 
arguments, it would have been easy.  

Duncan Murdoch
dmurdoch@mast.queensu.ca