twb5024@zeus.tamu.edu (Tye W. Botting, aka Warlock) (04/12/91)
In article <12702@aggie.ucdavis.edu>, cs40s014@deneb.ucdavis.edu writes...
%Anyway...point of this meandering post...Is there a big need for this?
%If so, how much of Curses is really needed? I saw Moria 4.83 for the IIGS.
%That uses Curses - so does that mean I'm reinventing the wheel?
%
%Thanks a lot!
%cs40s014@deneb.ucdavis.edu
Speaking of Moria 4.83 - blech! How about working on a 5.2.2
for us, if you want to get more experience w/ C? And, speaking of that,
NetHack would be extremely nice to have on my GS, too! Well, what do you
think? How about it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TWB5024@venus.tamu.edu Warlock BOTTING@tamcomp
twb5024@tamsumma Tye Botting
-----------------------------------------------------------------------SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/14/91)
cs40s014@deneb.ucdavis.edu writes: > Anyway...point of this meandering post...Is there a big need for this? > If so, how much of Curses is really needed? I saw Moria 4.83 for the IIGS. > That uses Curses - so does that mean I'm reinventing the wheel? It would be cool to have. It would make porting UNIX stuff much easier {like my NBA program :)} However, if curses are going to be ported over, they must be done in Assembly otherwise it will be too slow to make the effort worth while. Orca/C isn't going to hack it... - Hal | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
johnw@pro-harvest.cts.com (John Withers) (04/17/91)
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: > cs40s014@deneb.ucdavis.edu writes: >> Anyway...point of this meandering post...Is there a big need for this? >> If so, how much of Curses is really needed? I saw Moria 4.83 for the IIGS. >> That uses Curses - so does that mean I'm reinventing the wheel? > IT would be cool to have. It would make porting UNIX stuff much > easier {like my NBA program :)} However, if curses are going to be ported > over, they must be done in Assembly otherwise it will be too slow to make > the effort worth while. Orca/C isn't going to hack it... > > - Hal Why? Curses was developed on slow (by today's standards) mini computers using serial communications. We get acceptable Curses response via 9600 BPS serial connections. Although I don't have a GS, I don't think that even a //GS is that slow in character mode. John <johnw@pro-harvest>
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (04/18/91)
In article <8623@crash.cts.com> johnw@pro-harvest.cts.com (John Withers) writes: >Why? Curses was developed on slow (by today's standards) mini computers >using serial communications. We get acceptable Curses response via >9600 BPS serial connections. Although I don't have a GS, I don't think >that even a //GS is that slow in character mode. You might be surprised. There is a *big* difference between APW with and without the "FastText" init. I think the main consideration is using assembly to stuff things directly onto the screen... The C code that APW puts out for accessing single-byte memory locations is pretty bad, so there would be a noticeable improvement in speed if it were done in assembly (esp. since you can use short or DP addressing). Besides, why settle for "acceptable" response when you can have "instant" response? >John ><johnw@pro-harvest> -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ..!ucbvax!cory!fadden fadden@hermes.berkeley.edu (when cory throws up)