OpenEuphoria

Re: Is machine language that big?

• Posted by Robert B Pilkington <bpilkington at JUNO.COM> May 22, 1998
• 698 views

>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]