Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.unb.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!cs.mun.ca!byron
From: byron@cs.mun.ca (Byron Montgomerie)
Subject: Re: Talk about simulations.
Message-ID: <1995Mar4.134330.20950@cs.mun.ca>
Sender: usenet@cs.mun.ca (NNTP server account)
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <3i50ce$2hq@westnet.westnet.com> <3i833i$sri@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <GDR11.95Feb28161428@stint.cl.cam.ac.uk> <3j0t57$d3k@mail.one.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 13:43:30 GMT
Lines: 24

R. N. Dominick (cinnamon@one.net) wrote:
: Gareth Rees (gdr11@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Interactive fiction 

: :    * needs to be portable if it is to reach a large audience;
: :    * does not make heavy processing demands;
: :    * can't be released in source format (because most authors feel that
: :      letting players read the code would spoil the game for them).

: : Thus interpretation is an ideal solution.

: ...wouldn't an interpreted language require having the source code 
: availiable, a' la BASIC? AFAIK, interpreters make more demands on the 
: computer than compilers because of run-time parsing and evaluation and 
: such... or is something in my basic assumption wrong, there?

I think the point is that interpreting is the ideal solution.  No mention was
made of what would be interpreted, language source or gamefile code.  A simple
distinction is that a compiler produces code, an interpreter executes code.

Regards,

Byron

