[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua for Windows needs help
- From: Joshua Jensen <josh.jjensen@...>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:11:25 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: steve donovan
Date: 3/2/2011 9:46 AM
I work on console and can't use LuaJIT anyway. It wouldn't even matter
if Mike made it work on Xbox 360 or PS3 or Wii. The manufacturers
currently don't allow code to be generated on the fly.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Joshua Jensen<email@example.com> wrote:
This is true, but it is a good strategy. The byte code reading is FAR
faster, and for environments where we're scraping to get every bit of memory
Yeah, I have been spoiled by the 'infinite desktop memory model' .
For the little guys, JIT is probably too expensive anyway.
However, a fast assembly VM *would* be usable. That would be slick.
With load times on consoles for a level dictated by the manufacturer, we
need speed wherever we can get it. I posted within a thread in the past
various performance timings between bytecode and straight text script.
In one case, bytecode shaved a full second off the load time.
I imagine that people in the gaming industry would like bytecode
loading as well, although bytecode is not obfuscation.
As far as obfuscation goes, I like PopCap's WoW implementation of
Peggle. That's some seriously obfuscated code! :)