lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

----- Original Message -----
From: steve donovan
Date: 3/2/2011 9:46 AM
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Joshua Jensen<>  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! :)