TLK Code

[Simba]

yeah, except the analyzer doesn't recognize some of the last pieces of the code because I don't think it was updated when the code was updated. I might e-mail Brian about that when I get home....but I'm sure I'm driving him crazy with the problems I find here lately when I'm working on getting everything correct for my own archive.

but it does read the main part of the TLK code for us, so it's not exactly obsolete. better than nothing when you're too lazy to do it yourself like me sometimes.

[Moka]

I bet he probably knows about it but doesn't want to fix it =P Hardly anyone uses TLK code anymore and making an algorithm to decode it would be tough...

[Simba]

possibly. I know the video clips problem on the archive isn't fixable. (is fixable a word?!)

so I'm guessing algorithms are hard? I really don't know. if I could learn them I might try to see if I could come up with a fix myself....but I'm probably too lazy anyway

[Moka]

Algorithms are the step before using hard code. Its more of a thinking stage, everyone does it naturally.

When you look at a clock its an algorithm. Your brain determines the hour by looking at where the big hand is between which numbers, and then the tough part is how it determines the minutes...like right now its at the 11 and the big hand is just before the two so its 2:55.

We know how to read clocks, but we don't know the method by which we read them. Finding out that method is developing an algorithm.

[Simba]

whoa. my brain fried. in which case, I probably won't bother Brian with the analyzer anytime soon. sounds complicated and time-consuming. and, as you mentioned, not many use the code anymore. it kind of died when the major interest in the movies did.

[Regulus]

I'm wondering how difficult this would actually be to do. Generating the code should be rather straightforward.

Reading it, in theory, is just the reverse operation, only reason why that is more difficult is because the string needs to be parsed and I don't quite know how to do that (yet). The operators completely change everything though. While it's entirely possible for a program to be able to decode that, I have no idea how I could write it.

My question is, would anyone be interested if I *attempted* to update this?

It was obviously outdated back in 2009, and even more so now. I think I could also make some adjustments to the syntax to make it more intuitive to understand, which, at the very least, should reduce the need for a decoding algorithm to begin with.

[DGFone]

I kinda like the idea, but I only see it as a one-off thing that people might use once and then forget about. Is it worth it to get a few head aches to try and update this thing and make it more usable?

When the chips are all on the table, in the end, I don't think it's worth the effort.

[Regulus]

You're probably right. I just figured it'd be something fun to try. It's not like I won't have learned how to do this sort of thing by the end of this semester anyway.