![]() ![]() Critics said the graphics sucked and it wasn’t as good as the arcade version, but come on. the Extra-Terrestrial game), was responsible for the video game crash of ’83 and eventually the destruction Atari itself, yet Pac-Man sold more cartridges than any other 2600 title.* Everyone had it and everyone played it. It, so the story goes (along with the E.T. I don’t know why Pac-Man gets such a bad rap. Survive a few rounds of gameplay, and be treated to humorous intermissions between Pac-Man and the ghosts.ĭescription courtesy of MobyGames via a CC license This only lasts for a limited amount of time, as the ghost's eyes float back to their center box, and regenerate to chase after Pac-Man again. During this time, the ghosts turn blue, and Pac-Man can eat them for bonus points. Pac-Man can turn the tables on his pursuers by eating of the four Energizers located within the maze. One touch from any of these ghosts means a loss of life for Pac-Man. Pac-Man's goal is continually challenged by four ghosts: The shy blue ghost Bashful (Inky), the trailing red ghost Shadow (Blinky), the fast pink ghost Speedy (Pinky), and the forgetful orange ghost Pokey (Clyde). One of the most popular and influential games of the 1980's, Pac-Man stars a little, yellow dot-muncher who works his way around to clear a maze of the various dots and fruit which inhabit the board. I fix my code.Click here to view the manual to this game. And if I get a new version of a compiler/assembler that starts telling me that my old code now has new warnings/errors. Pretty much all my code compiles/assembles with zero warnings/errors. I was always taught, and firmly believe, that with any assembler/compiler you treat warnings as errors. Warnings are not errors that we just let "sneak by" because we happen to like the incorrect behaviour. Is the latest dasm better than the older versions. Likewise, dasm has fixed this issue so that incorrect values are flagged as the errors they are. No thoughts of "backward compatibility" there. The print in version 2, for example, was a poor implementation/design. And rightly so - it was totally the right thing to do. Totally incompatible and it broke absolutely heaps of code. Python redefined the print function between version 2 and 3. But, given the use of a 16-bit value for an 8-bit operand, the end result may or may not be what the programmer actually intended. It's still faulty and contains syntactical errors even if the old dasm makes a few assumptions (such as taking the low byte of a 16-bit value) and assembles it to a functional binary. That doesn't make the previous code correct. If allowing 16-bit values for 8-bit operands (and automatically taking the low byte) is so important to anyone then they can Ī) use a version of dasm that allows it, and stick to itī) maintain a local version of dasm and keep that up to date with only the changes they approve/like.ī) fork dasm and re-implement the version you like. In other words, there is always the capability to assemble old code, if you wish. Previous code can always use previous versions of dasm. Fixing those expressions allows people to use the latest DASM, but aside from that, it makes the code a better example. His stated purpose in releasing the code was to provide an example for other programmers. Instead he is now updating it which is super-generous, since he completed the project so long ago. It was generous of him to do that, and it would be entirely reasonable for him to just say, this code works with DASM 2.20.11. People who have code that compiles and works only with some old version of DASM, and who refuse to update their code, are certainly welcome to continue using their old released his code 6 years ago. ![]() But a feature like that, in a tool which is free to its users and costly to its maintainers, is firmly in DIY territory. Ideally, it would be possible for the user to demote it to a warning (like an inverted form of GCC's -Werror options). The explanation of my position is simple: I believe the benefits of this particular error check outweigh the costs. "Backwards compatible" in this context is a polite way to say never add any new error checking. I think the extreme position is breaking other peoples code, please explain why you disagree. I'm advocating we keep the mature compilers backward compatible so as not to break other programmers pre-existing not have ever changed his code if the warning from the compiler had not turned into a show stopper to prevent it from working. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |