OSDev.org

alexfru wrote:

monobogdan wrote:

alexfru wrote:I have almost finished porting the D-Flat windowing system to my Smaller C compiler.
Here's a pic of a demo program, memopad, using it (running in DOSBox).
I don't think one needs to reinvent it. Working public domain code, familiar look and feel of Turbo Vision and the likes of it.

Looks interesting.

I think originally this is turbo vision based. Right?

I don't think it is, not in terms of code (TV's code is quite different and it was written in Object Pascal and C++ with bits of assembly, while D-Flat is mostly C). Same idea and similar behavior, though.

Turbo Vision is written on C, Turbo Pascal uses only it's units.

monobogdan wrote:Turbo Vision is written on C, Turbo Pascal uses only it's units.

RTFriendlyM.

Hi

What shell is better?

With standard style or with list style?

Run program

Commited two variants of shell and run utility.

There were actually two versions of Turbo Vision, one written in Object Pascal, the other in C++ (both using Borland extensions). The latter was released into the public domain, whereas the former remained proprietary but had its source code distributed with Turbo Pascal. I actually started learning OOP by studying the Pascal version 15-20 years ago.

Regarding the images, they look like a TUI, not like a shell. A shell is a CLI program, typically consisting of a REPL running on top of an interpreter in a terminal. Why don't you make the running facility part of the file manager? It seems pretty silly to have to go through the file manager to see the path of an executable, remember it, go back, and type it in. The notepad should probably be such an application program instead of a separate option.

There is plenty more to be said. If you want to design an interface, I recommend learning more about them from this book.

Love4Boobies wrote:There were actually two versions of Turbo Vision, one written in Object Pascal, the other in C++ (both using Borland extensions). The latter was released into the public domain, whereas the former remained proprietary but had its source code distributed with Turbo Pascal. I actually started learning OOP by studying the Pascal version 15-20 years ago.

Regarding the images, they look like a TUI, not like a shell. A shell is a CLI program, typically consisting of a REPL running on top of an interpreter in a terminal. Why don't you make the running facility part of the file manager? It seems pretty silly to have to go through the file manager to see the path of an executable, remember it, go back, and type it in. The notepad should probably be such an application program instead of a separate option.

There is plenty more to be said. If you want to design an interface, I recommend learning more about them from this book.

You can run executable from filemanager.

Love4Boobies wrote:There were actually two versions of Turbo Vision, one written in Object Pascal, the other in C++ (both using Borland extensions). The latter was released into the public domain, whereas the former remained proprietary but had its source code distributed with Turbo Pascal. I actually started learning OOP by studying the Pascal version 15-20 years ago.

Regarding the images, they look like a TUI, not like a shell. A shell is a CLI program, typically consisting of a REPL running on top of an interpreter in a terminal. Why don't you make the running facility part of the file manager? It seems pretty silly to have to go through the file manager to see the path of an executable, remember it, go back, and type it in. The notepad should probably be such an application program instead of a separate option.

There is plenty more to be said. If you want to design an interface, I recommend learning more about them from this book.

When i find way to opitimize my putpixel implementation, i'm write normal shell.

I don't think you've clicked on any of those links, have you? Bash and the Command Prompt in Windows are shells. Presumably, you're talking about a GUI. I would read that book in order to learn the vocabulary and to be able to design something that doesn't stink, like you have so far. (It's not an offense, we all do it!)

Love4Boobies wrote:I don't think you've clicked on any of those links, have you? Bash and the Command Prompt in Windows are shells. Presumably, you're talking about a GUI. I would read that book in order to learn the vocabulary and to be able to design something that doesn't stink, like you have so far. (It's not an offense, we all do it!)

I know about it's, i mean in android for example launchers is shells. Really, if you don't know

monobogdan wrote: I know about it's, i mean in android for example launchers is shells. Really, if you don't know

So posix execve() call is a shell, you say...

dozniak wrote:

monobogdan wrote: I know about it's, i mean in android for example launchers is shells. Really, if you don't know

So posix execve() call is a shell, you say...

execve is hack, not shell.

These "launchers" are certainly not shells. That's just Android slang for themes or skins. If you want to see a shell running under Anrdoid, you can check out the adb one.

Love4Boobies wrote:These "launchers" are certainly not shells. That's just Android slang for themes or skins. If you want to see a shell running under Anrdoid, you can check out the adb one.

And so, i can use android slang on osdev, right?

But you're using it wrong. You're using the word "shell", which means something else, instead of the ambiguous "launcher", which I still wouldn't recommend unless you want to waste people's time with extra explanations about Android nomenclature. I actually had to Google "Android launchers". And themes/skins/launchers are not the same as GUIs, they are just a presentation running on top of it.