🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CEDMAN.90Nov14192256@lynx.ps.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
{talking about the ARP shell}
> It is to
>this day the only shell which made all the right design choices,
>starting from being small and fast to being largly compatible and
>implemented in as a system library.

	Well, there are as many definitions of what a shell "should be" as 
there are users, I'm afraid.  And ASH made one MAJOR boo-boo: it creates
it's own process structures, and this will NOT work under 2.0.  Crash, burn,
up in flames. :-(  (Note: this is what Charlie told me, I never bothered
trying it myself.)

	Arp had some nice ideas, but parts of it suffered from a lack
of overall design and had some flaws related to the way in which it was
coded (tight, tricky assembler is small, but it can lead to some nasty boo-
boos, especially when you don't have a tight design first).

	The basic premise of Arp was good, which was why we incorporated a
fair amount of Arp (or it's equivalents, designed with hindsight) into 2.0
when I rewrote it in C/asm.  And of course, with all those new calls and
with the new commands written in C, they got smaller (or went into the shell,
or got a number of useful new features).  Plus they're a lot easier to
maintain and debug in C.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"