Floating point has sped up to the point where I would rather perform the calculation on the GPU than expend the memory bandwidth looking it up in the table, since the memory bandwidth is my current bottleneck. The GPUs are largely memory bound these days; your solution was sound six years ago, but now would just exacerbate speed issues.
You're not thinking far enough outside of the (eye) box. The interference pattern in the hologram isn't of the images being presented. The hologram just determines which image reaches which eye.
Having worked for this company, I can attest to the fact that the technology does work. Gaylord Moss was their holographer when I was there.
There really is a hologram involved. No lasers are mentioned, because no lasers are needed in this configuration.
However, having left the company along with all of the technical personnel on the project at the time after they didn't pay me, I can also attest to the fact that they probably aren't going anywhere fast.
I at least got to get it set up to play Quake 3 before I left.;)
I hope that I am not the only one who thinks that the article was hopelessly naive.
When people started working on games for the xbox they knew roughly what they could expect from the hardware because it was comparable to something already on the market (the PC and the PS2). It didn;t contain any radical new model of computation, or graphics hardware that was any significant change from what had gone before.
Now look at the goals for the "next generation" hardware. If all you want is shovelware that looks a lot like the last generation of games, then I agree almost entirely with the articles assessment. There is room for a slow and steady bloat cycle on the xbox360 DVDs.
However, there is not enough room to attempt anything that might actually try to do something novel with a great deal of space. Is it that game developers don't have a use for all of that space? Or is it really that the game developers have stuck to a formula, because there was a known amount of space available to their title for distribution.
Also, the degree of variability in the amount of space used is a factor. No one wants to engineer a game to the exact amount of space on the disk. It results in hard cuts at the end of development as you try to shoehorn your product into the space alloted.
Having more space than you need allows you to make design decisions that you can't otherwise make. It lets developers play with ideas that might have too high a risk:reward ratio to attempt when you are worried about having a 20% margin of error in the amount of storage for your game. And who wants to sit there worrying about being a miser with resources? Do I dare put signs up for all the stores in the village or will that waste too much texture space?
Also, now the pixel pipelines are flexible enough that you can come up with more uses for texture memory than another pattern to throw at the wall. We have bump mapping, parallax mapping, HDR, specular and diffuse maps, etc. We can fit all sorts of stuff together in novel ways. Who is to say that won't make a big change in the amount of space required for a title?
The first generation of xbox 360 titles look a little better than the old xbox titles, but they are hardly the quantum leap that people were hoping for. Developers have all sorts of wiggle room to eke out more processing power with these weird architectures on the xbox 360 and the ps2, so the space requirements are likely to balloon more than this fairly optimistic article admits.
If you aren't going to be dealing with employees then the process is pretty straightforward. I'm not an accountant but I have started a couple of sole proprietorships over the years.
If you want to make things look more 'legit' by starting up a DBA it doesn't greatly complicate your taxes.
You should be able to find out where in your local area you to go to get a DBA (doing business as) form to set up a sole proprietorship. It usually costs about $20-$25. This gives you to the ability to do business as "Bob's Weblog" or whatever.
You can then go get a state/federal employer identification number if you need to pay employees, and deal with all of that nonsense, but it doesn't sound like you are going that route.
If you want to take checks as "Bob's Weblog" go down to your local bank with the DBA paperwork and open a bank account for the DBA. You'll probably pay $10/month for the account, but it lets you take checks made out to the name of your DBA. Think of it as a surcharge for the appearance of legitimacy.
You then just report your income on your personal taxes at year end using the usual 1040A. The forms tell you all you need to know. Now, if you have a lot of purchases associated with your "business" it may make sense to talk to someone like H&R Block about trying to get deductions associated with the business. But if you aren't incurring more than a grand or two worth of expenses, then its not worth itemizing your deductions as they probably won't exceed the standard deduction. In the case of a blog or two, you probably aren't yet to the point where itemizing makes much sense, unless the rest of your taxes are already more complicated or you are paying for a ton of bandwidth.
This is the simplest way to make your business look bigger than it is, without incurring any form of 'double taxation', board meeting overhead, or a crap-ton of S-corporation paperwork.
Now, that said, if you are posting something you might get sued over, then you might want to talk to a lawyer to see if starting a real corporation would gain you any legal protection, but it'd destroy any profitability you have.
Infocom managed to implement it to run in such tight memory constraints because they designed all their games to run in a virtual machine (the Z-machine), and provided it with the ability to page in and out sectors of data from disk. They then compiled the code from a high level language Lisp-ish language on a nice big mainframe, and only had to code directly on the various microcomputer platforms enough code to run the virtual machine. Thats why Infocom games can consistently across so many platforms, despite widely varying architectures and space contraints.
They didn't view themselves as having 64k to work with which in the C-64 case they had to share with 16k of roms and a display buffer, etc. They viewed themselves as simply paging data out of a much larger virtual machine. Even Zork 1 images weigh in between 94k and 123k IIRC. Some later Z-machine images were considerable larger.
This is also why all those silly little 'write your own Zork in BASIC' games that people published in Compute's Gazette, etc. never were as cool as Zork. They just didn't have the architecture to scale that well.
The EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) states WERE originally proposed as an attack on quantum mechanics, but the argument swung the other way.
Strangely enough, almost all of the power of quantum computing derives from the strange consequences of this would-be counter-example.
Quantum teleportation and basically all of other quantum computation tricks use qubits in EPR states, but even 'teleportation' doesn't really allow sending information faster than light, since you have to send conventional bits of information about the observations in order to reconstruct the quantum state on the other end.
So in one sense, the original Einstein concern about information traveling faster than the speed of light is valid. It just takes a different form to fit into quantum mechanics.
Actually, the end-game dark-prince stuff occurs even if you didn't pick up the life upgrades. =/
I have to admit, it made me like the dark prince again. He was starting to grate on my nerves during the Well of Ancestors, but he worked well baiting you in the end-game.
Having just spent the weekend before my finals on this game, my only issue with this review is that I think it gave it too low of a score. =) I went back and played Warrior Within to get back up to snuff, suffering through the overly looped music to do so, then dove into Two Thrones.
The good:
The music is back to the style of Sands of Time.
They brought back the Sands of Time voice actor.
Some additional platformer elements.
The dark prince is more enjoyable than the sand wraith was to play. The dark prince plays like a strange mixture of "Bionic Commando" and Kratos from God of War. Since picking up sand regenerates him to full, he gets to deal with swarms of enemies, and is fairly liberating to play.
The quick kill system helps remove a lot of the tedium of the encounters. Since you can avoid a lot of the "tons of enemies" fights by stealthily killing the guards before they can sound the alarm. I found myself trying to be sneaky, which was a novel experience for me in a PoP title.
I think they did a fairly good job of reconciling the two seemingly different characters of the prince from Sands of Time and the more callous, hardened version of him that came along later in Warrior Within.
The bad:
The last chariot race was annoying, well, until I went back to the part before hand and made sure to do it with extra sand.
It was too short. The one thing I did like about Warrior Within was that its environments were mostly bidirectional; you wound up going forward and back through the same general area in two different times. In Two Thrones they returned to the Sands of Time linear story line. I think they lost a bit of the free-form feeling that you had in Warrior Within.
There doesn't appear to be an alternate ending ala the last two titles.
Conclusion:
All in all I enjoyed the title. Now I need to go cram for finals.
Personally, I preferred the camera work in this film to that of most big budget films of late.
The main reason is that the camera wasn't afraid of holding a shot for a long time in a battle sequence. Since Gladiator, every big budget film has felt the need to feel 'gritty' by playing with framerates, shaking the hell out of the camera and flitting between viewpoints like mad. It has been making things all but unwatchable. I "watched" half of the Bourne Supremacy without looking at the screen simply because they wouldn't hold a shot long enough to let you get your bearings and would shake the hell out of it just to keep things edgy.
Sure Joss is a huge fan of the two-camera over-the-shoulder dialog sequences, but the simple camera work in that case is effective and does not distract from the dialog, which is his real strong suit.
Stackless python is a completely different animal. Normal python is just about useless for embedding when you have large numbers of agents and need real time performance. Stackless flits between agents with very little overhead thanks to all the continuation stuff.
You need to throw a semi-colon in there after you declare the hash reference $a, and you should dereference $a like:
print $a->{first}[2];
instead of referring to the contents of the unspecified hash %a, like you are doing, but your second snippet should work fine.
Nope, no more complex at all. =P
Yeah the difference is that the average end user typically doesn't spend 40 hours in front of a television listening to the same bit of soundtrack over and over again.
(That is unless you go out and rent/buy 4-5 seasons of a show at a time and watch them in marathon sessions like I do.)
I'm glad people are finally spending more money on video game sound tracks. After several hours of the same speed-metal high-adrenaline "fight music", I typically want to take a hammer to whatever faceless composer put together the repetitive noise I'm listening to, and then follow up by bludgeoning whatever management muckety-muck cut his 'masterwork' down to a 2 minute loop, so as to maximize the throbbing in my temples.
The main reason to consider it, IMHO, is that it parses a couple of orders of magnitude faster on the browser than the equivalent XML document, with about the same information content.
Now, the problem is the lack of namespaces, xpointers, and all of the other standards that make XML worth having.
Same here. Everything works fine until I open up a pdf file, then the app seems to hang for long stretches of time and won't let me close it for 30 seconds or so. It is bad enough that I downloaded the 'view this page in IE' plugin and use that when I browse a page that contains pdf links.
I never had a problem with Firefox when I was running it on my Mac, but now that I'm using it on my Windows machine and this problem is basically crippling my use of it.
Has no one stopped to think that the measurements that most of these sites are giving are in inches, then they throw in a metric 'about this much' measurement?
That was the impression i got from reading through the first couple of links. I don't believe those sites were claiming that meters were actually the length of their inventory item or riverbed, just providing an approximation. It may have been more appropriate for the to measure in units of similar scale like centimeters, but I don't see what all the hubbub is about.
At least two of the links used 'about 1 meter' when they gave their measurements.
Not that this defense stands for all of the sites, but its something to keep in mind.
I've been working on a pet project very similar to this for a couple of years now off and on.
Currently, I'm constructing the editor as a javascript/xul/xbl based application under mozilla (not yet publicly released) and tossing the documents over jabber to a code repository which connects as another client. Other pieces in the suite, such as the compiler, talk over jabber to the repository, helping to ensure modularity.
Why mozilla? It gives me a cross platform editing environment and I can take advantage of the built in xhtml/mathml rendering. (Although, I admit I'm largely hamstrung by the faulty mathml rendering on Mac OS X at the moment)
Why jabber? It serves as a glorified RPC mechanism for exchanging XML document fragments for me. Its primary advantage compared to SOAP, XML RPC, etc, is that I can allow the repository or execution environment to send out updates to the clients, rather than rely on client based polling. After all, in this day and age of everything lying being NAT, you usually can't open sockets to clients directly. It also has the advantage that it makes evolving the platform into a collaboration environment a simple logical progression, rather than something grafted on as an afterthought.
My main interest is in what advantages you derive from allowing a rich text markup language and extensible grammar, and the ability to tag information and retain markup across versions.
A smarter editor allows you to move towards allowing dynamically defined operators, which can have their precedence defined in terms of a partial ordering with respect to one or more existing operator, that way you can red flag during the editing process when something is ambiguous. Superscripts, subscripts, radicals, Riemann sums are allowed by defining small extensions to the grammar in the language and loading them into the editor.
The potential for language tagging comments or method labels for internationalization is nifty, but more than a bit of a Pandora's box.
An XML namespace for version control means the repository can store one document much like a cvs system. By having the editor submit a series of change requests to the repository rather than edit the document directly, integrity is ensured.
Since you have a fairly stable set of tags you can now embed more information for statistical collection, loop counting from debugging compiles. Links to hand- or auto-generated proofs of algorithmic correctness, big-O information, etc.
So, yes, there is a value to storing the data in XML and making the editor smarter.
However, one primary is that any such project has a rather high bar to clear to become even marginally useful.
There are also a number of interesting problems regarding how to handle certain types of code refactoring and traditional text editing operations in this sort of environment.
Funny, put don't most Z-machine emulators for the old infocom games include a number of tricks to change and optimize behavior based on certain game titles - not just on z-code version.
I keep tripping over case sensitivity issues on OS X myself. Perl LWP installing "HEAD" in/usr/bin for determining last change dates of web pages in/usr/bin and overwriting the classic unix 'head' we all know and love.
GNU-Crypto falls into an infinite loop due to finding a find (gnu-crypto) when it searches for a virtual set of dependencies (GNU-CRYPTO) in its test setup.
I've stumbled into and had to fix or abandon dozens of errors of this type.
Fortunately 10.3 now has the ability to mount case insensitive HFS volumes.
Slashdot Mirror
China probably thought they were signing an agreement to combat internet privacy.
Floating point has sped up to the point where I would rather perform the calculation on the GPU than expend the memory bandwidth looking it up in the table, since the memory bandwidth is my current bottleneck. The GPUs are largely memory bound these days; your solution was sound six years ago, but now would just exacerbate speed issues.
A public demo of the new Vista start up sound:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YOADbv1sgjA
=)
Gen Con gets booth babes?
An interference pattern is present and utilized, just not changed.
There is a nice little screen of good old silver halide with an interference pattern on it sitting in front of the user.
You're not thinking far enough outside of the (eye) box. The interference pattern in the hologram isn't of the images being presented. The hologram just determines which image reaches which eye.
0 2_Paper_Final.pdf which describes the basic process.
;)
See page 9-10 of: http://www.med-smart.org/publications2003/ITEC_20
Having worked for this company, I can attest to the fact that the technology does work. Gaylord Moss was their holographer when I was there.
There really is a hologram involved. No lasers are mentioned, because no lasers are needed in this configuration.
However, having left the company along with all of the technical personnel on the project at the time after they didn't pay me, I can also attest to the fact that they probably aren't going anywhere fast.
I at least got to get it set up to play Quake 3 before I left.
This is not a troll.
I hope that I am not the only one who thinks that the article was hopelessly naive.
When people started working on games for the xbox they knew roughly what they could expect from the hardware because it was comparable to something already on the market (the PC and the PS2). It didn;t contain any radical new model of computation, or graphics hardware that was any significant change from what had gone before.
Now look at the goals for the "next generation" hardware. If all you want is shovelware that looks a lot like the last generation of games, then I agree almost entirely with the articles assessment. There is room for a slow and steady bloat cycle on the xbox360 DVDs.
However, there is not enough room to attempt anything that might actually try to do something novel with a great deal of space. Is it that game developers don't have a use for all of that space? Or is it really that the game developers have stuck to a formula, because there was a known amount of space available to their title for distribution.
Also, the degree of variability in the amount of space used is a factor. No one wants to engineer a game to the exact amount of space on the disk. It results in hard cuts at the end of development as you try to shoehorn your product into the space alloted.
Having more space than you need allows you to make design decisions that you can't otherwise make. It lets developers play with ideas that might have too high a risk:reward ratio to attempt when you are worried about having a 20% margin of error in the amount of storage for your game. And who wants to sit there worrying about being a miser with resources? Do I dare put signs up for all the stores in the village or will that waste too much texture space?
Also, now the pixel pipelines are flexible enough that you can come up with more uses for texture memory than another pattern to throw at the wall. We have bump mapping, parallax mapping, HDR, specular and diffuse maps, etc. We can fit all sorts of stuff together in novel ways. Who is to say that won't make a big change in the amount of space required for a title?
The first generation of xbox 360 titles look a little better than the old xbox titles, but they are hardly the quantum leap that people were hoping for. Developers have all sorts of wiggle room to eke out more processing power with these weird architectures on the xbox 360 and the ps2, so the space requirements are likely to balloon more than this fairly optimistic article admits.
If you aren't going to be dealing with employees then the process is pretty straightforward. I'm not an accountant but I have started a couple of sole proprietorships over the years.
If you want to make things look more 'legit' by starting up a DBA it doesn't greatly complicate your taxes.
You should be able to find out where in your local area you to go to get a DBA (doing business as) form to set up a sole proprietorship. It usually costs about $20-$25. This gives you to the ability to do business as "Bob's Weblog" or whatever.
You can then go get a state/federal employer identification number if you need to pay employees, and deal with all of that nonsense, but it doesn't sound like you are going that route.
If you want to take checks as "Bob's Weblog" go down to your local bank with the DBA paperwork and open a bank account for the DBA. You'll probably pay $10/month for the account, but it lets you take checks made out to the name of your DBA. Think of it as a surcharge for the appearance of legitimacy.
You then just report your income on your personal taxes at year end using the usual 1040A. The forms tell you all you need to know. Now, if you have a lot of purchases associated with your "business" it may make sense to talk to someone like H&R Block about trying to get deductions associated with the business. But if you aren't incurring more than a grand or two worth of expenses, then its not worth itemizing your deductions as they probably won't exceed the standard deduction. In the case of a blog or two, you probably aren't yet to the point where itemizing makes much sense, unless the rest of your taxes are already more complicated or you are paying for a ton of bandwidth.
This is the simplest way to make your business look bigger than it is, without incurring any form of 'double taxation', board meeting overhead, or a crap-ton of S-corporation paperwork.
Now, that said, if you are posting something you might get sued over, then you might want to talk to a lawyer to see if starting a real corporation would gain you any legal protection, but it'd destroy any profitability you have.
Infocom managed to implement it to run in such tight memory constraints because they designed all their games to run in a virtual machine (the Z-machine), and provided it with the ability to page in and out sectors of data from disk. They then compiled the code from a high level language Lisp-ish language on a nice big mainframe, and only had to code directly on the various microcomputer platforms enough code to run the virtual machine. Thats why Infocom games can consistently across so many platforms, despite widely varying architectures and space contraints.
They didn't view themselves as having 64k to work with which in the C-64 case they had to share with 16k of roms and a display buffer, etc. They viewed themselves as simply paging data out of a much larger virtual machine. Even Zork 1 images weigh in between 94k and 123k IIRC. Some later Z-machine images were considerable larger.
This is also why all those silly little 'write your own Zork in BASIC' games that people published in Compute's Gazette, etc. never were as cool as Zork. They just didn't have the architecture to scale that well.
Yes, this is off-topic.
I just stopped listening to music.
I gave up and started listening to public radio.
Where's that in their business model? =)
The EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) states WERE originally proposed as an attack on quantum mechanics, but the argument swung the other way.
Strangely enough, almost all of the power of quantum computing derives from the strange consequences of this would-be counter-example.
Quantum teleportation and basically all of other quantum computation tricks use qubits in EPR states, but even 'teleportation' doesn't really allow sending information faster than light, since you have to send conventional bits of information about the observations in order to reconstruct the quantum state on the other end.
So in one sense, the original Einstein concern about information traveling faster than the speed of light is valid. It just takes a different form to fit into quantum mechanics.
Possible spoiler..
Actually, the end-game dark-prince stuff occurs even if you didn't pick up the life upgrades. =/
I have to admit, it made me like the dark prince again. He was starting to grate on my nerves during the Well of Ancestors, but he worked well baiting you in the end-game.
Having just spent the weekend before my finals on this game, my only issue with this review is that I think it gave it too low of a score. =) I went back and played Warrior Within to get back up to snuff, suffering through the overly looped music to do so, then dove into Two Thrones.
The good:
The music is back to the style of Sands of Time.
They brought back the Sands of Time voice actor.
Some additional platformer elements.
The dark prince is more enjoyable than the sand wraith was to play. The dark prince plays like a strange mixture of "Bionic Commando" and Kratos from God of War. Since picking up sand regenerates him to full, he gets to deal with swarms of enemies, and is fairly liberating to play.
The quick kill system helps remove a lot of the tedium of the encounters. Since you can avoid a lot of the "tons of enemies" fights by stealthily killing the guards before they can sound the alarm. I found myself trying to be sneaky, which was a novel experience for me in a PoP title.
I think they did a fairly good job of reconciling the two seemingly different characters of the prince from Sands of Time and the more callous, hardened version of him that came along later in Warrior Within.
The bad:
The last chariot race was annoying, well, until I went back to the part before hand and made sure to do it with extra sand.
It was too short. The one thing I did like about Warrior Within was that its environments were mostly bidirectional; you wound up going forward and back through the same general area in two different times. In Two Thrones they returned to the Sands of Time linear story line. I think they lost a bit of the free-form feeling that you had in Warrior Within.
There doesn't appear to be an alternate ending ala the last two titles.
Conclusion:
All in all I enjoyed the title. Now I need to go cram for finals.
Personally, I preferred the camera work in this film to that of most big budget films of late.
The main reason is that the camera wasn't afraid of holding a shot for a long time in a battle sequence. Since Gladiator, every big budget film has felt the need to feel 'gritty' by playing with framerates, shaking the hell out of the camera and flitting between viewpoints like mad. It has been making things all but unwatchable. I "watched" half of the Bourne Supremacy without looking at the screen simply because they wouldn't hold a shot long enough to let you get your bearings and would shake the hell out of it just to keep things edgy.
Sure Joss is a huge fan of the two-camera over-the-shoulder dialog sequences, but the simple camera work in that case is effective and does not distract from the dialog, which is his real strong suit.
Stackless python is a completely different animal. Normal python is just about useless for embedding when you have large numbers of agents and need real time performance. Stackless flits between agents with very little overhead thanks to all the continuation stuff.
Yeah the difference is that the average end user typically doesn't spend 40 hours in front of a television listening to the same bit of soundtrack over and over again.
(That is unless you go out and rent/buy 4-5 seasons of a show at a time and watch them in marathon sessions like I do.)
I'm glad people are finally spending more money on video game sound tracks. After several hours of the same speed-metal high-adrenaline "fight music", I typically want to take a hammer to whatever faceless composer put together the repetitive noise I'm listening to, and then follow up by bludgeoning whatever management muckety-muck cut his 'masterwork' down to a 2 minute loop, so as to maximize the throbbing in my temples.
"How would you move Mount Fuji?"
It might take a while to roll up a big enough katamari, but I think I have a way...
The main reason to consider it, IMHO, is that it parses a couple of orders of magnitude faster on the browser than the equivalent XML document, with about the same information content.
Now, the problem is the lack of namespaces, xpointers, and all of the other standards that make XML worth having.
Same here. Everything works fine until I open up a pdf file, then the app seems to hang for long stretches of time and won't let me close it for 30 seconds or so. It is bad enough that I downloaded the 'view this page in IE' plugin and use that when I browse a page that contains pdf links.
I never had a problem with Firefox when I was running it on my Mac, but now that I'm using it on my Windows machine and this problem is basically crippling my use of it.
Has no one stopped to think that the measurements that most of these sites are giving are in inches, then they throw in a metric 'about this much' measurement?
That was the impression i got from reading through the first couple of links. I don't believe those sites were claiming that meters were actually the length of their inventory item or riverbed, just providing an approximation. It may have been more appropriate for the to measure in units of similar scale like centimeters, but I don't see what all the hubbub is about.
At least two of the links used 'about 1 meter' when they gave their measurements.
Not that this defense stands for all of the sites, but its something to keep in mind.
I've been working on a pet project very similar to this for a couple of years now off and on.
Currently, I'm constructing the editor as a javascript/xul/xbl based application under mozilla (not yet publicly released) and tossing the documents over jabber to a code repository which connects as another client. Other pieces in the suite, such as the compiler, talk over jabber to the repository, helping to ensure modularity.
Why mozilla? It gives me a cross platform editing environment and I can take advantage of the built in xhtml/mathml rendering. (Although, I admit I'm largely hamstrung by the faulty mathml rendering on Mac OS X at the moment)
Why jabber? It serves as a glorified RPC mechanism for exchanging XML document fragments for me. Its primary advantage compared to SOAP, XML RPC, etc, is that I can allow the repository or execution environment to send out updates to the clients, rather than rely on client based polling. After all, in this day and age of everything lying being NAT, you usually can't open sockets to clients directly. It also has the advantage that it makes evolving the platform into a collaboration environment a simple logical progression, rather than something grafted on as an afterthought.
My main interest is in what advantages you derive from allowing a rich text markup language and extensible grammar, and the ability to tag information and retain markup across versions.
A smarter editor allows you to move towards allowing dynamically defined operators, which can have their precedence defined in terms of a partial ordering with respect to one or more existing operator, that way you can red flag during the editing process when something is ambiguous. Superscripts, subscripts, radicals, Riemann sums are allowed by defining small extensions to the grammar in the language and loading them into the editor.
The potential for language tagging comments or method labels for internationalization is nifty, but more than a bit of a Pandora's box.
An XML namespace for version control means the repository can store one document much like a cvs system. By having the editor submit a series of change requests to the repository rather than edit the document directly, integrity is ensured.
Since you have a fairly stable set of tags you can now embed more information for statistical collection, loop counting from debugging compiles. Links to hand- or auto-generated proofs of algorithmic correctness, big-O information, etc.
So, yes, there is a value to storing the data in XML and making the editor smarter.
However, one primary is that any such project has a rather high bar to clear to become even marginally useful.
There are also a number of interesting problems regarding how to handle certain types of code refactoring and traditional text editing operations in this sort of environment.
Funny, put don't most Z-machine emulators for the old infocom games include a number of tricks to change and optimize behavior based on certain game titles - not just on z-code version.
It might fall under prior art.
I keep tripping over case sensitivity issues on OS X myself. Perl LWP installing "HEAD" in /usr/bin for determining last change dates of web pages in /usr/bin and overwriting the classic unix 'head' we all know and love.
GNU-Crypto falls into an infinite loop due to finding a find (gnu-crypto) when it searches for a virtual set of dependencies (GNU-CRYPTO) in its test setup.
I've stumbled into and had to fix or abandon dozens of errors of this type.
Fortunately 10.3 now has the ability to mount case insensitive HFS volumes.
Guess its time to upgrade.
The question is should we inform them about the bug in your code (= instead of eq) which will cause us to always Win?
Nahhhhh...