Hi,
I've written some DAs, two of which are posted on PGHQ - TextDragon and
LinkDragon. I found DAs way easier to write than hacks. A DA is just a
code resource that gets executed by a DA launcher. When I write the DA I
don't have to worry about patching the OS, which function to patch, etc...
It's one level of abstraction higher.
Then, users have the choice of DA launcher. I prefer Swipe, which uses pen
strokes, but there are DALs which use menus, and you can invent your own.
My DAs will work for the upcoming 'sound activated DA launcher'! Estimated
release date is 2029 :-)
Last but not least, there's a performance and security improvement. If
every extension creates a patch, when you type a stroke, you may have 1000
extensions checking whether you are invoking them. And patch removal isn't
as straightforward as Hackmaster promised.
Bottom line: OS patches are for patching the system. If you want to write
an application that needs to run on top of another (TextDragon and
LinkDragon are excellent examples), you're better writing Desk
Accessories. Nevertheless, there are things which can only be acomplished
by patching the system.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Carvalho
---------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel McCarty wrote:
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel McCarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > One thing I've never understood is that the DA/App launcher is
> > > a HackMaster hack itself. So why would it be necessary to write a
> > > plug-in for a hack when you can just write the hack to begin with?
> > >
> >
> > Best as I can understand, Hacks don't tend
> > to have UIs, they intercept OS vectors and
> > do their thing "behind the scenes" as it
> > were. DAs are little apps w/ UIs that you
> > might want to run w/o leaving the current
> > app.
>
> But I could easily create a hack that displays some sort
> of UI on the screen, like free memory. Wouldn't doing this
> in a DA be another step to perform the same task?
>
> Regards,
> Daniel.
