Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Compilers for deckers
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 20:18:05 -0500
Ummm... Why is it that the better (ie higher-rated) compilers generate less
efficient code? (Don't you dare say "game balance"!) In my experience,
better compilers generate code which has been optimized more thoroughly, and
thus tends to be smaller.

Other than that, I like it. Minor addition, though: You can't get more
bonus dice from your compiler than you had from Computer skill in the first
place. (This seems to be pretty standard on use of Pools; I think it should
also apply here.)

Or I suppose you could approach this from a completely different language and
say that using a compiler divides base time by (Level/4)+1 while increasing
code size by 25-(level^2)%, but you use skill in the appropriate programming
language instead of Computer (I'd probably make programming languages a
specialization under Computer, though) - thus incorporating the possibility
of someone being an ace BASIC hacker (ha!) with only a cursory knowledge o
other languages... (The numbers above are just off the top of my head, of
course.)

esper@***.umn.edu
Message no. 2
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Compilers for deckers
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 22:54:06 -0400
esper:

> Ummm... Why is it that the better (ie higher-rated) compilers generate less
> efficient code? (Don't you dare say "game balance"!) In my experience,
> better compilers generate code which has been optimized more thoroughly, and
> thus tends to be smaller.
>

See the message I just sent out about the size. Basically it is because
of libraries and resources. On a lot of really good compilers optimization
of memory/registers/execution time can make a big difference. But add
in unused functions/classes/packages from libraries and the size can soar.
Weeding out the unused functions/resources can take up a large amount of
time and make the main purpose of these compilers (conserve time easy
of implementation) obsolete.

> Other than that, I like it. Minor addition, though: You can't get more
> bonus dice from your compiler than you had from Computer skill in the first
> place. (This seems to be pretty standard on use of Pools; I think it should
> also apply here.)
>

Good idea! Some misuse I had not considered.

> Or I suppose you could approach this from a completely different language and
> say that using a compiler divides base time by (Level/4)+1 while increasing
> code size by 25-(level^2)%, but you use skill in the appropriate programming
> language instead of Computer (I'd probably make programming languages a
> specialization under Computer, though) - thus incorporating the possibility
> of someone being an ace BASIC hacker (ha!) with only a cursory knowledge o
> other languages... (The numbers above are just off the top of my head, of
> course.)
>

I like the skill idea. I thought about dividing the time, but it
made them a little too powerful for me. Also I wanted these compilers
to work very similar to the Optical Chip Encoders.

> esper@***.umn.edu
>

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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Compilers for deckers, 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!