Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!rti!sas!walker
From: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Just the facts, maam.
Message-ID: <454@sas.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 88 19:10:07 GMT
References: <900@nuchat.UUCP> <1961@dino.ulowell.edu> <1816@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC
Lines: 26

In article <1816@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>Well, ConMan doesn't. I used it for a few days and got totally disgusted with
>it. It doesn't fit well into the Amiga: it should have a new name, for example,
>rather than patching console.device. Than I could do a NewCLI CONMAN:... and
>still use the old console.device. Why would I want to? Well...
>
>I couldn't use it while checking out my programs because it allocates and
>frees memory as commands scroll through the command history. Which meant I
>could never be sure whether I really had a memory leak or not.

As I understand it, it doesn't allocate and free memory.  There is a fixed
memory buffer allocated for history when the console window is opened.  The
buffer will hold a lot of short commands, or a few long commands, but it
doesn't grow and shrink.

There is a major advantage to calling it CON: instead of CONMAN:, however.
pre-existing programs can take advantage of CONMAN whether or not they even
are aware of its existence.  Thus, we get command recall in windows that
have no notion of command recall at all.

I think the 'drawbacks' you have listed for CONMAN are nitpicks (or mis-
apprehensions).  CONMAN is the greatest thing since sliced bread for those
of us who don't enjoy typing the same commands over and over, and it fits
effortlessly into the system.  Actually, I'd rather slice my own bread than
do without CONMAN now.