Re: Rewrite (was Re: Classes, Race, Experience proposal)

[Scott MacFiggen <smurf@soda.berkeley.edu>]

In message <199405262004.NAA03551@soda.berkeley.edu>you write:
>In message <199405261657.JAA14437@soda.berkeley.edu>, Scott MacFiggen writes:
>>In message <199405260938.AA11203@bolero.rahul.net>you write:
>>>A lot of stuff needs to be cleaned up some, so it is easier to understand.
>>>And in fact, I think a lot of the code right now is in pretty good shape.
>>
>
>>	One of my major beefs with crossfire code is the wasted
>>space.  It seems whenever someone adds a new feature, they add a new
>>entry to the object structure, stuff like that.
>
>  Hmm.  I've found myself forced several times to add stuff to the object
>structure for new features.  What do you propose instead, Scott?  I'd
>like to have a better idea.  I think crossfire is far too resource-
>intensive, and this may make system administrators more opposed to
>having servers running in their machines.

	No,no,no,no,no I didn't mean it wasn't ok to add to 
the object structure, I meant that sometimes additions to
the object structure are not needed or should go someplace else,
or could be combined with other structure member to optimize,
like using bit vectors for boolens or something.  Considering
how many objects exist in crossfire cleaning the object
structure could reduce memory usage greatly.  (anyone happen to
know how many objects are held in memory at a time, on average).

I was just using the object structure as an example though.


##############################################################################
#  Scott MacFiggen   --  88 VTR250  --  EUVE Systems Administrator  --  CEA  #
#     									     #
#  smurf@soda.berkeley.edu   CSUA Vice-President   scottmm@cea.berkeley.edu  #
##############################################################################