🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <602@uwovax.uwo.ca> 7103_300@uwovax.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) writes:
>In article <401@clio.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
> [Various info/questions about utilities being ported to the ST,
>  then a question about ST NetHack]
>
>I've got NetHack 2.3 working on the ST. I want to give it a little time
>to settle (i.e. to make *sure* all those bugs are out) before posting it,
>but it seems to be working pretty well. It's *big*, though; nearly 400K
>just for the executable. Would people rather see a "pared down" version
>that will run on 520's, or should we go for the full 2.3?
>--
>Eric R. Smith                      email:
>Dept. of Mathematics               7103_300@uwovax.uwo.ca
>University of Western Ontario      7103_300@uwovax.bitnet
>London, Ont. Canada N6A 5B7    (a shared mailbox: put my name on
>ph: (519) 661-3638              the Subj: line, please!)

   Well, since there is already a "pared down" version (ST Hack v1.03) it
isn't necessary to chop up ST NetHack.  If you did "pare down" NetHack, you'd
probably end up with a lot of complaints from people who assumed the "pd" 8-)
(visual joke summary:  "pared down" = "pd" = "public domain" [so much for
humor]) version was the only one available.

--
Jared J. Brennan
BITNET: INS_BJJB@JHUVMS, INS_BJJB@JHUNIX
ARPA: ins_bjjb%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_bjjb
"You kids get outta my yard!"
DISCLAIMER:  I'm really PO'ed today, so ignore most of what I write.