| |
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. |
|
... 5 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
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) |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quasar you forgot about value combinations in instruction arguments. There is brutally huge ammoun of possible combinations of fucntion calls, addresses, and so on and so on. Maybe if you also limited things like.. addressing area (text screen) you could get more chances but still there would be huge ammount of possible things.. thinking about random routine genrator is almost like trying to make compressor which can compress datas compressed by itself. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
Hey, thanx for fixing my CSDB-fuxxor number Perff! :) |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
@Quasar:
Even if we limited the number of combinations per byte to 10, it would still mean that the total number of combinations would be a 1 followed by 256 zeroes. So a supercomputer that could test a trillion billion combinations a second would still take 2e+217 (2 with 217 zeroes after) times the age of the universe to test all combinations.
So no, we will never see all possible 256 bytes demos. |
| |
Ninja
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 411 |
I think 256Byte-Demos are a waste of diskspace! 1Block-Intros are way more efficient ;) |
| |
tecM0
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 40 |
i hope SHAPE start a new 2blocker_competition soon :D
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 - Next |
