The most obvious benefit Rust can give them is being safe from memory leaks. This is hardly controversial: it has been a Zig design choice that memory leaks are the developer/user's responsibility. They have already demonstrated to have fixed several of those [0].
Marketing-wise, it has been an obvious success. Dunno if that matters.
Yes? I’ve made that mistake, it’s not particularly hard to do. Stash an Arc in something that lives too long, or forget to clear its inner data structure when you should, and you have a leak.
That’s not like … a design flaw or something, just a common class of error Rust can’t save you from.
Seems pretty simple to me: if the software works, the port has been successful.
If this is unsatisfactory, another way to think about the question is to ask "what would make you conclude it has failed?" That requires a sharp choice.
I remember using a single save game and soft locking myself in Space Quest 2 by not getting the glowing gem, and in Space Quest 1 I think by not picking up the shard of broken glass, and being so pissed off about having to replay.
The LSL dip and sunscreen issues you fixed were particularly egregious, by that point I feel like they should have fixed things.
While Sierra should absolutely be recognized for spawning an entire genre of games that were legitimately fun, it is crazy that they were fine with shipping games with these broken states, when it was eminently preventable.
Thanks!! I mean, I can kiiiinda see it as a design philosophy... It does make games harder and make them feel higher stakes. What really gets me is some of the later games that look like they would be safe, but aren't. For example Gabriel Knight 1 has a day structure that looks like it would prevent you from getting stuck... but it doesn't, you can trigger a day's end without getting everything you actually need. That's just, like, evil haha
> it is crazy that they were fine with shipping games with these broken states, when it was eminently preventable.
Given what I know about Sierra (nothing first-hand, just impressions based on what I've read), I would not be surprised at all if this was entirely intentional.
You can read the manual all you want, but if you don't know basic algebra, trig, calculus, etc, you are not going to have any idea how to apply or use much of anything that the manual describes with regards to actually doing math with a graphing calculator. There is a base level of knowledge required.
It was a general purpose computer, just a small one. Anything you could do on a "real" computer could be done on a calculator, albeit with tighter constraints. It might help to have some higher math objective to accomplish, because that would better utilize the preloaded system software. But in terms of the hardware? Probably not super relevant.
I made a lot of use of the TI-89 era CAS in college. But IMO the TI-83 era manuals taught me more about both math and computers than the subsequent generations could have.
