Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Comments on New Matrix Toys
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 19:40:48 -0500
I like the Blacker Box. My only complaint is that the mechanics seem
convoluted. Is the following correct: Every time it takes damage, roll 2
dice against a target number equal to half the total times it's taken damage?

Rewriting Utility Appearances
Fine, but personally I'd rather econmize the space. A Rating 6 Sleaze
so customized would take up 138 Mp! I'll stick with my Filter, which already
customizes everything to fit. :)

Programming Languages
All of these increase a program's size. Why is that? It seems to me
that the utilities already in existence had to be written with some language
or another; why are they that much smaller? Unles you're counting on them havingbeen
written in the equivalent of machine language, which takes up less time
& space than higher languages. (I think. I haven't done any programming in
years).


I like them all though. Keen Ideas.

J Roberson
Message no. 2
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Comments on New Matrix Toys
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 22:46:55 -0400
> From: RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU
>
> I like the Blacker Box. My only complaint is that the mechanics seem
> convoluted. Is the following correct: Every time it takes damage, roll 2
> dice against a target number equal to half the total times it's taken damage?

Correct.

>
> Rewriting Utility Appearances
> Fine, but personally I'd rather econmize the space. A Rating 6 Sleaze
> so customized would take up 138 Mp! I'll stick with my Filter, which already
> customizes everything to fit. :)
>

The reason it takes space is it is basically a wrapper that controls the
graphics to appear as is wanted not as the original program had. It is
PURE appearence. The advantage is time. It is VERY much faster than a
rewrite and faster than trying to use a filter. Just an option for the
cinematic types.

> Programming Languages
> All of these increase a program's size. Why is that? It seems to me
> that the utilities already in existence had to be written with some language
> or another; why are they that much smaller? Unles you're counting on them
having
> been written in the equivalent of machine language, which takes up less time
> & space than higher languages. (I think. I haven't done any programming in
> years).
>
>

The size increase comes from the use of libraries. I assumed (1st. mistake)
that regular programs are already OPTIMIZED for size. Try to write
a small hello program in C. If it accesses the screen you must include
stdio.h. This increases the size drastically. This can be gotten around
be several methods, but it ADDS time. These compilers include several
libraries/resources/etc. which are not necessary but are in the library.
A good analogy if anyone has done any is X-Windows or MS-WIndows
programming. The libraries can be HUGE. Even though you are only using a
SMALL subset of the functions. These libraries/resources make the program
much easier and faster to write.

> I like them all though. Keen Ideas.
>
> J Roberson
>

Thanks.

-- Quiktek
-- Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins <bob@********.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Comments on New Matrix Toys
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:13:12 +0000
[ Talk of how program's should be smaller if written with a compiler ]
>
>The size increase comes from the use of libraries. I assumed (1st. mistake)
>that regular programs are already OPTIMIZED for size. Try to write
>a small hello program in C. If it accesses the screen you must include
>stdio.h. This increases the size drastically. This can be gotten around
>be several methods, but it ADDS time. These compilers include several
>libraries/resources/etc. which are not necessary but are in the library.
>A good analogy if anyone has done any is X-Windows or MS-WIndows
>programming. The libraries can be HUGE. Even though you are only using a
>SMALL subset of the functions. These libraries/resources make the program
>much easier and faster to write.

A good optimizing compiler, though, can spot code that can't be called, except
recursively, and will not include these. Also, yeah, C needs this massive
library, stdio.h, to write a message to the screen. Pascal, on the other hand,
doesn't. Don't assume that libraries have to be softcoded and included with the
program.

>
>> I like them all though. Keen Ideas.
>>
>> J Roberson
>>
>
>Thanks.

And don't get me wrong, I really like them as well. Honest.

>
>-- Quiktek
>-- Todd Montgomery
>tmont@****.wvu.edu
>tmont@***.wvu.edu
>un032507@*******.wvnet.edu
>

--
Robert Watkins
bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
************ It wouldn't be luck if you could get out of life alive. ***********
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <bob@********.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Comments on New Matrix Toys
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:06:31 +0000
>Programming Languages
> All of these increase a program's size. Why is that? It seems to me
>that the utilities already in existence had to be written with some language
>or another; why are they that much smaller? Unles you're counting on them
havingbeen written in the equivalent of machine language, which takes up less
time
>& space than higher languages. (I think. I haven't done any programming in
>years).
>
IMHO, they should reduce the size. After all, optimizing compilers exist today,
which generate code that is more compact than any person can hope to produce.
(Well, in reasonable time, anyway).

>
>I like them all though. Keen Ideas.
>
>J Roberson
>


--
Robert Watkins
bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
************ It wouldn't be luck if you could get out of life alive. ***********
Message no. 5
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Comments on New Matrix Toys
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 10:49:38 -0400
> From: Robert Watkins <bob@********.NTU.EDU.AU>

> >Programming Languages
> > All of these increase a program's size. Why is that? It seems to me
> >that the utilities already in existence had to be written with some language
> >or another; why are they that much smaller? Unles you're counting on them
> havingbeen written in the equivalent of machine language, which takes up less
> time
> >& space than higher languages. (I think. I haven't done any programming in
> >years).
> >
> IMHO, they should reduce the size. After all, optimizing compilers exist
today,
> which generate code that is more compact than any person can hope to produce.
> (Well, in reasonable time, anyway).

I seem to have opned up quite a hornets nest with this post.

The reason the compilers increase size is that they use predefined
libraries which add redundant code to the object file. Then the object
file is compiled. The main reason is time. The compilers I suggested
optimize TIME. Wasted code is there and a fact of life. I am quite
aware of what optimized compilers do todo. I have even wrote a RISC
compiler for a class. I also am very familiar with trying to reduce the
size of programs (Old Tandy fun with F-19 Stealth Fighter). This was
time consuming. It takes a good bit of time to optimize custom libraries for
projects.


--
-- Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu
Message no. 6
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Comments on New Matrix Toys
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 11:12:40 -0400
> From: Robert Watkins <bob@********.NTU.EDU.AU>

> A good optimizing compiler, though, can spot code that can't be called, except
> recursively, and will not include these. Also, yeah, C needs this massive
> library, stdio.h, to write a message to the screen. Pascal, on the other hand,
> doesn't. Don't assume that libraries have to be softcoded and included with
the
> program.

I am not assuming they have to. But that is the way these compilers give you
the bonus. They use pregenerated libraries to reduce the time for a programmer.
Today, once a program is done and verified, if space is critical then unused
libraries are inspected. But time is added. And that is what is trying to be
improved.

Also, lets talk about real SE (Software Engineering) languages. C/C++, Ada,
and a smitch of MODULA-2. I have yet to meet anyone who does SE with Pascal.
Although a powerful language it does suffer from some implementation problems
with its versions of OOP. You will notice that actual programmers that
work on large scale SE projects use libraries to there full extent. Managment
loves the time benefit. Cutting time to market and ridding the Beta version
fiascos are the reason CMU/SEI has the Software Maturity Model. Which
companies are hurriedly trying to follow. Libraries are used widespread
today. I was just taking it and using my own experiences.

>
> And don't get me wrong, I really like them as well. Honest.

Thanks. I do try. Good, constructive comments.

-- Quiktek
-- Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Comments on New Matrix Toys, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!