1. Is machine language that big?
Big isn't the right word. First, its not the right technical term. =
Second, big is an understatement.
I compiled BUZZ.EX for a friend and for my own enjoyment (with BIND). Th=
e
original file was 2,342 bytes and the resultant was 177,something bytes. =
Is machine language that cumbersome?
--Alan
=
2. Re: Is machine language that big?
>Big isn't the right word. First, its not the right technical term.
>Second, big is an understatement.
>
>I compiled BUZZ.EX for a friend and for my own enjoyment (with BIND).
>The original file was 2,342 bytes and the resultant was 177,something
>bytes.
>
>Is machine language that cumbersome?
BIND creates a copy of EX.EXE (BINDW makes a copy of EXW.EXE) and appends
the shrouded form of the .EX to it. (I don't know if it needs to modify
anything about the copy of the interpreter... But that's basically what
happens.)
So, basically, you get EX.EXE (or EXW.EXE) and a shrouded BUZZ.EX in
BUZZ.EXE when you bind a BUZZ.EX.
FWIW (For what it's worth), I have a modified version of BUZZ that uses a
data file similar to:
"Computer Industry Forcast"
{"Researchers predict that",
"Very soon, we can confidently say,"
}
{"Compaq",
"Micro$oft",
"Euphoria (the greatest programming language ever)"
}
{"will",
"may",
"must",
"could",
"might"
}
{"crush",
"by out",
"sell out to"
}
Then I bound it and took it to school. That way, it could easily be
changed and added to. (Completely, including the header, if that was
wanted.)
IIRC (If I recall correctly), I added the "will","may",etc part to
increase the variety of it. (And one classmate did it very effectively..)
I also fixed the Word Wrap part to work perfectly.... :)
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
3. Re: Is machine language that big?
- Posted by Irv <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
May 22, 1998
-
Last edited May 23, 1998
At 07:35 PM 5/22/98 -0400, Alan Tu wrote:
>Big isn't the right word. First, its not the right technical term. =
>
>Second, big is an understatement.
>
>I compiled BUZZ.EX for a friend and for my own enjoyment (with BIND). Th=
>e
>original file was 2,342 bytes and the resultant was 177,something bytes. =
>
>Is machine language that cumbersome?
Big:
Of course, bind does not compile a program, just tacks your
Euphoria code onto a copy of ex.exe so you can send it out
in one package. (and people can't mess with it).
Using assembly language you could probably write the same
program to fit in 5 or 6,000 bytes.
Cumbersome:
However, the assembly code might run to 20 or 30 pages
of incomprehensible code.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.......
Irv
4. Re: Is machine language that big?
Alan Tu wrote:
> Big isn't the right word. First, its not the right technical term.
> Second, big is an understatement.
>
> I compiled BUZZ.EX for a friend and for my own enjoyment (with BIND). The
> original file was 2,342 bytes and the resultant was 177,something bytes.
> Is machine language that cumbersome?
>
> --Alan
If you have read the documentation, it says that 170k is the ex.exe
(exw.exe), 5k for .e (.ew) files, and 2k for the actual code.
Byebye.
- "LEVIATHAN"
