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