----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Ajamian" <peter@PAJAMIAN.DHS.ORG> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:03 AM > Anyone want to comment on this one? ASCII vs. binary pfiles. I am > probably in the minority, but I tend to prefer binary because (AFAIK) > they load in faster and easier (no parsing necessary). Also, there is a > space consideration with ASCII which takes up lots more room plus wastes > more space by storing each player's data in a seperate file (thus taking > up directory space and wasted space to fill to the sector boundry on > disk). My take on it is that I prefer ASCII because on my system I don't have any issues with storage space, and writing a parser is no trouble for me either. As to loading faster, since the files aren't constantly being loaded while the MUD is running, I don't have any major concerns there. The reason I like them is that they are more flexible...I can make complex changes to player stats/variable sizes, etc. without having to write a conversion program. I can also eliminate the "spare" variables in the player_special_data_saved structure, thus reducing the memory footprint (as long as we're talking about performance). All that being said, I have plenty of RAM, and so far I have been able to rename the spare variables whenever I've needed to add a stat...so I am not practicing what I am preaching here. :-) Mike -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/05/01 PST