Re: One for the programmers or maths/logic geeks

xhoster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

[see reply to Don in this thread - the problem's been rendered
obsolete by a new discovery]

>John Hatpin <RemoveThisjfhopkin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 3. It takes a significant time to query the owner****p of each cell of
>> land, so an optimised algorithm will examine owner****p as few times as
>> reasonably possible.
>
>Can the answer be memorized once queried, so it case we need to know
again
>it can be retrieved from memory rather than re-queried?  How much memory
>can your object maintain?

I'd tell you how much memory I've got at my disposal, but you wouldn't
believe me.  OK, then - it's 16K, barely enough to remember what you
came into the room for.  Handily, there's a built-in command to find
out how much free memory you've got; unfortunately, it's not reliable.

It's certainly a weird implementation.  Each object can have as many
scripts as it wants embedded in it, but each script only has 16K for
data.  And no, you can't share data between scripts, unless you use a
crude messaging system to handle inter-process communication which
itself uses memory.  Your options for storing data compactly are
limited too; for example, the smallest numeric data type is a 32-bit
signed integer, and there are no built-in methods of converting bases.

Even more frustratingly, there's no alternative method of storing data
- no databases, no writing to files, nothing.  You can read (text)
data all right, just not perform any kind of write operation. Amazing,
huh?
-- 
John Hatpin