That's really true.

I remember back when that happened.  Wasn't it back around the introduction of Axioms?

YAY Axe Parser 0.5.3 is out

Don't use it yet: http://ourl.ca/4072/213957

Well, my program which uses a few /256 is fine, but oh wait 16/16 Division, so it's not a problem, most of mine are 8/16. Still bad, I really hope the next version is 1.0.0 bugless

I re-uploaded a fixed version so you won't have to wait until 1.0.0

^ Yes.

Since someone brought up shells recently, it really got me thinking... what if I created another compile option for an "Axe Shell" that calls all the built-in subroutines from the parser itself instead of copying them into the program?  I'd estimate this would save about a kilobyte in an 8kb program, ~12% decrease in size, while having the speed remain the same.  In fact, I could optimize some routines more for speed instead of size since the size wouldn't matter, so some routines like multiplication and division could be significantly faster.  Yes, this would mean you need the Axe application to run the program if you compile for that option, but for people struggling with the 8kb limit or 3D math speed, it could be a life saver.

But then I realized this would basically involve me writing an entire shell or else you wouldn't have a way to actually run the programs.  Either that, or I'd have to have a home screen parser hook like DCS has.  This is possible, but difficult I think since so many other programs use it and I don't want to cause too many conflicts with the hook chaining.

So that gave me another idea.  Since I 'd like to avoid making a shell from scratch, what if I could get these features built into an already existing popular shell?  So I'm thinking of talking to Kerm about it, I'm not sure how much space is left in DCS so I can't say for sure if this is possible, I think all the axe subroutines combined are under 3KB together.  But anyway, is this something you guys thing I should invest time in, regardless of if it ends up in a new Axe Shell or DCS?  It could makes shells more useful than just the extra header.

So I'm thinking of talking to Kerm about it, I'm not sure how much space is left in DCS so I can't say for sure if this is possible, I think all the axe subroutines combined are under 3KB together.

There isn't much space. I think he has a few hundred bytes on every page, or less.

But anyway, is this something you guys thing I should invest time in, regardless of if it ends up in a new Axe Shell or DCS?  It could makes shells more useful than just the extra header.

Definitely. It sounds like a great idea.

That would be awesome!  If you end up doing it, you could talk some to ThePenguin, who has experience with (ab)using Doors's routines without even running the program from Doors itself.