Re: Lua for Windows needs help

[Joshua Jensen <josh.jjensen@...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: steve donovan
Date: 3/2/2011 9:46 AM
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Joshua Jensen<josh.jjensen@gmail.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' [1].
> For the little guys, JIT is probably too expensive anyway.
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.

However, a fast assembly VM *would* be usable.  That would be slick.
> I imagine that people in the gaming industry would like bytecode
> loading as well, although bytecode is not obfuscation.[2]
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.

As far as obfuscation goes, I like PopCap's WoW implementation of 
Peggle.  That's some seriously obfuscated code!  :)

Josh