Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!ssbell!mcmi!unocss!ho@fergvax.unl.edu
From: ho@fergvax.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: TSR's with no assembly language
Message-ID: <2610@unocss.unomaha.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 90 00:24:22 GMT
Sender: news@unocss.unomaha.edu
Reply-To: ho@hoss.unl.edu
Distribution: na
Lines: 22

From article <9771@wpi.wpi.edu>, by jhallen@wpi.wpi.edu (Joseph H Allen):
> In article <924@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> troj@icon.weeg.uiowa.edu () writes:
>>In <10125@portia.Stanford.EDU>,  dma@nova.stanford.edu (Domingo Mihovilovic A)
>>writes:

Frankly, I'm getting sick of all the Turbo/MSC/etc. fighting.  Stick it in
alt.flame or something.  It's all been heard before, several times...

But I *am* intrigued by assertions that you can write TSR's with no
assembly, by both languages.

It would seem, to my untrained mind, that using any high-level language to
write a TSR would eat up amazing amounts of memory to hold the run-time
library.  Even the most basic TSR requires a certain amount of run-time
kernel, on the order of a few K... doesn't it?

Also, how do you find out where your TSR "ends" (so you can feed the right
paragraph back to DOS in the TSR call)?
---
        ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska
Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu               USnail:  115 Nebraska Union
                                                 Lincoln, NE 68588-0461