Xref: utzoo rec.games.hack:4885 comp.sys.mac.programmer:8408 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!bellcore!wind!sdh From: sdh@wind.bellcore.com (Stephen D Hawley) Newsgroups: rec.games.hack,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Any word on NetHack 3.0 for Mac? Keywords: Macintosh Message-ID: <17431@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: 19 Aug 89 21:10:36 GMT References: <30453@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <29657@mirror.UUCP> <19288@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> <9225@cadnetix.COM> <17422@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1989Aug18.210038.5272@fxgrp.fx.com> Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com Reply-To: sdh@wind.UUCP (Stephen D Hawley) Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ Lines: 18 In article <1989Aug18.210038.5272@fxgrp.fx.com> wiedmann@plover.fx.com (Christian Wiedmann) writes: >I've written some output routines on the Mac (unfortunately they probably >wouldn't be useful for this purpose), and I can tell you that it's hard to >get any reasonable performance out of the Mac. I'd be impressed by a terminal >emulator which could run at 9600 baud throughput. >If you really want fast, I think you'll have to do some serious optimization. Not true. The bottleneck in terminal emulators on the mac is how fast it scrolls, not how fast the text can be printed (trust me, I've sweated this). NetHack should be a lot faster. I would be willing to bet that the bottleneck is in printf(). Since NetHack does almost no scrolling, this should be repairable. Steve Hawley sdh@flash.bellcore.com "Up is where you hang your hat." --Jim Blandy, computer scientist