Talk:Terminal control/Positional read: Difference between revisions
Talk:Terminal control/Positional read (view source)
Revision as of 16:37, 18 October 2010
, 13 years ago→Very Difficult
(Very Difficult but, nevertheless, useless) |
m (→Very Difficult) |
||
Line 5:
: But I also wonder about the utility of "terminal control". For most applications, on modern computers, you can do a complete update of a terminal's screen with about 2k of data. These terminal control artifacts date back to the age when 2k of data was prohibitively bulky and slow. Nowadays, except for interactive gaming, just sending a full screen replacement should be more than adequate for most tasks. And, nowadays, if I was writing an interactive game, I would much rather be working with OpenGL than with a fixed-width character based terminal.
: Meanwhile, for this task, if you have a local data structure representing how things are supposed to be, that should be adequate for most tasks. (If you have a system where the display can change due to outside factors, you are not really working with a normal terminal.)
: After thinking about the hardware support issues (or lack-of-support issues), and the utility issues (or lack-of-utility issues), I have decided to stay out of this category of tasks. I think employing these concepts in a modern program would almost always be a mistake. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 14:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
| |||