| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
256b category
I know there isn't made a whole lot of these for the C64, but still, there are a few (pouet.net sez 5.) So therefore I think there should be a 256 bytes demo category here on CSDB too. |
|
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
yes i totally agree... and ofcourse also 512 byte, 384 byte, 768 byte, 667 byte and not to forget the infamous 8 byte demo category. i also have a demo of 16956 bytes, so there should be a category too. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
C'mon, 256 bytes is a legendary category on PC. There's even a website dedicated to it - http://www.256b.com
And since PC totally r00lZ, we need 256b on C64 too! ;)
Ofcuz there can be too many categories, but if there's 1K and 4K, why not 256b? |
| |
Optimus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 122 |
Yes, yes, yes!!! Please support tiny intros :)
Really, it's nice to see that 256b intro coding is starting on the C64. I am wondering why they got so popular on the PC but not on other platforms. (Other platforms another example? Amiga. It has some very cool 4kb intros but why haven't I ever seen some 256b intros in it? I think also, Spectrum had 256b intro compos too!) 256b compos should be arranged, why not? I also wish to see much better 256b tiny intros on the C64 in the future. Current ones are a bit ugly, but still nice for a start. And the C64 disk loading isn't boring with tiny intros anymore ;)
Whatever.. :) |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Optimus, sorry but I found your comment a little bit blunt. |
| |
Optimus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 122 |
eh? Was heisst blunt anyways???
No matter, support tiny intros! :) |
| |
QuasaR
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 145 |
I think 256b is on PC so popular because it's so easy to do things in pc-ass than in c64-ass. Just look at the built-in multiply-commands, much more regs, etc... I know that there are 256b-"demos" on C64 but in my eyes they're not demos... But 256b should be easy done by a codegenerator... You have jsut to test 256^256 version and filtering the working ones out... Hey, Cruzer, wasn't that you who came up with a code-generator?! |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
@QuasaR: I didn't come up with the idea for a code generator, I just posted some random thoughts about it.
Actually 256^256 combinations is quite a larger number. It's about 3.231700607131100730071487668867e+616, which means...
32317006071311007300714876688670000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Even if you had a super fast supercomputer that could test a million billion combinations a second it would take 3.231700607131100730071487668867e+601 seconds, or 1.024765540059329252305773613923e+594 years to test them all. That's about 6.831770267062195015371824092819e+583 (6831770267062195015371824092819... fill in a good 500 zeros after that) times the age of the universe. So no, unless we get a major breakthrough like quantum computers that can test all combinations at once, it's totally unrealistic even with just 256 bytes.
You're right about that it's much easier to make tiny code on PC than C64 because each intructions on PC can do alot more. But still I think it's a good challenge to try making something that small on a C64. And you actually learn some tricks that can be used for size optimizing bigger stuff too. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
D'oh! I just totally fucked this thread up. :(
Wish it was possible to edit forum posts. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
That's okay Cruzer ;-) It has a good illustrative effect ;-) |
| |
QuasaR
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 145 |
sorry, needed some time to find the reply button... =) Cruzer, you don't have to check all 256^256 combination, 'cause when we're assuming that all these 256b are code & no gfx/msx, the first byte would be a command. There we have around 60 or 70 (don't know really), and then most times a argument comes, like $64 or $7854 or #$67 and then a command follows and so on till all 256b are used... And we can quit all combinations starting with RTS or RTI (hey, we could ban these commands and NOP & KIL also, to cut the thing even shorter...). Now give any hardcored C64-freak a little bit of the huge amount of 256b'ters and let them check them... I think, this is one thing to think about. That would makes the C64-scene the first scene having all 256b'ters posibill on their computer.. =8) |
... 5 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 - Next |
