[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pygame] fun game

To: pygame-users@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [pygame] fun game
From: James Paige <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:10:17 -0700
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: pygame-users-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: pygame-users@seul.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:10:28 -0400
In-reply-to: <d9e88eaf0704231605p763b2bd0n43e98527bd4fd698@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070423224508.GE12140@karnov.dreamhost.com> <d9e88eaf0704231605p763b2bd0n43e98527bd4fd698@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: pygame-users@xxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-pygame-users@xxxxxxxx

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
> On 4/24/07, James Paige <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Does anybody know a more fun operation than
> >math.sqrt that I could use to push the fun up to 100%?
> 
> while 1:
>  pass

Nope, that is about the same. still averaging about 90% fun on just one 
processor.

[aside]Dave LeCompte, after reading the rest of your 
conversation with Brian, and re-reading my own "fun game" post, 
I wan't to clairify that it was just an attempt at friendly 
teasing-- I don't intend to be mean-spirited. The idea of a CPU 
as a machine for converting electicity into fun just tickled my 
funny-bone :)[/aside]

---
James Paige

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [pygame] fun game
  - From: Dave LeCompte (really)

References:
- [pygame] fun game
  - From: James Paige
- Re: [pygame] fun game
  - From: Rikard Bosnjakovic

Prev by Author: [pygame] fun game
Next by Author: Re: [pygame] fun game
Previous by thread: Re: [pygame] fun game
Next by thread: Re: [pygame] fun game
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread