Live data from Hacker News

A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

arstechnica.com

1–10 of 80 posts

Re: A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

#3
This is buried in a comment but it's worth mentioning.

Naughty Dog used Lisp to write Crash Bandicoot. They had something they called GOAL--Game Oriented Assembly Lisp. From what I understand, this was a DSL they wrote so they could write assembly language using Lisp syntax, and call it from Lisp functions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070127022728/http://lists.midn...

Re: A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

#4
post #3

This is buried in a comment but it's worth mentioning. Naughty Dog used Lisp to write Crash Bandicoot. They had something they called GOAL--Game Oriented Assembly Lisp. From what I understand, this was a DSL they wrote so they could write assembly language using Lisp syntax, and call it from Lisp functions. https://web.archive.org/web/20070127022728/http://lists.midn...

GOAL was the next iteration of that idea, used in the Jak games. Crash used GOOL, which you can read more about at https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-ba...

Re: A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

#6
post #3

This is buried in a comment but it's worth mentioning. Naughty Dog used Lisp to write Crash Bandicoot. They had something they called GOAL--Game Oriented Assembly Lisp. From what I understand, this was a DSL they wrote so they could write assembly language using Lisp syntax, and call it from Lisp functions. https://web.archive.org/web/20070127022728/http://lists.midn...

"Any sufficiently complicated Lisp or Scheme program will eventually be rewritten in C++, Java, or Python."

It's as true now as when I first said it in 2005-2006.

Re: A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

#7
The only method I’ve seen work semi-reliably for archiving console game source is to grab the physical machine that made the final build, spray paint “Do Not Dispose! Build archive!” on its side and stick it in a back room. Even that has a 2% chance/year to end up in a dump.

Otherwise, console game build systems were far to finicky to repro later (at least up to the 360/PS3 generation). You would need a huge collection of confidential tools from the manufacturer and those tools sometimes had OS/driver/hardware dependencies that can be reproed reliably with a VM. Think USB driver for the GameCube debugging connection. IIRC, the PS1 and N64 required add-in cards to connect a PC to them. Then there was the propriety test disc/cartridge burners.

Re: A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

#9
post #7

The only method I’ve seen work semi-reliably for archiving console game source is to grab the physical machine that made the final build, spray paint “Do Not Dispose! Build archive!” on its side and stick it in a back room. Even that has a 2% chance/year to end up in a dump. Otherwise, console game build systems were far to finicky to repro later (at least up to the 360/PS3 generation). You would need a huge collecti…

All true, yet for PS1 there was the net yaroze dev system that was distributed for some time. I actually had a copy at one point.

Seems inconcievable it wouldn't just been easier to use a software emulator and the original data from the cd. But then I don't know if there is a good software emu for the PS1?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Yaroze

Re: A remaster with no old code: Crash Bandicoot was rebuilt nearly from scratch

#10
post #6
post #3

This is buried in a comment but it's worth mentioning. Naughty Dog used Lisp to write Crash Bandicoot. They had something they called GOAL--Game Oriented Assembly Lisp. From what I understand, this was a DSL they wrote so they could write assembly language using Lisp syntax, and call it from Lisp functions. https://web.archive.org/web/20070127022728/http://lists.midn...

"Any sufficiently complicated Lisp or Scheme program will eventually be rewritten in C++, Java, or Python." It's as true now as when I first said it in 2005-2006.

Don't you mean that the other way around? "Any C++, Java, or Python, or program will eventually be written in a Lisp-based DSL that generates that language" ? Seems far more accurate to me than to claim that all LISP functionality is derivable in (more rigid, less flexible) language. What prompted you to say this in the first place? If LISP is the mother language, of course all the rest are but a subset.
Post reply on HN