"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

In message
31, DanS
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
in :

still admire compact code, though, and feel it runs
both faster and more reliably. Like "flamer", a little
utility I have which simulates flames on the screen, in
453 bytes ... [my copy of the file is dated 1995,
though I think the original is older than that].)

This is intersting. Do you have source, or just the
program ?

Sorry, only the executable. (I think it's a .com rather
than a .exe! I think it runs in something like CGA - you
can certainly see the pixels - though it runs under DOS,
9x, and XP [though full-screen on all]; I haven't tried
it on 7.) And with a name like that, it's impossible to
google for.

CGA ? That wouldn't be good anyway....

Just guessing; it runs in full screen mode (not
surprising), and when it's running I can see that its
resolution is limited (I can see the little squares the
flames are made up of). But it switches to it from whatever
(VGA, SVGA, etc.) mode you're using, and you get your
original screen back when you stop it.

And yes, and Googling for "flamer", even with a binch of
other qualifying words, was futile.

"BUNCH" even.


Is your email valid if I take all the dots out (apart from
the one before the c)?

It *is* valid if all the dots are removed except for the one
before the 'c'.