I'm trying to come up with improvements to my latest version of my longish running 84+ SE game series, Zer0es, Zer0es IV (aka Zer0GS). Problem is, I don't know what needs improvement. This topic here is for code improvements. There is now a separate thread in the Projects section for new features and gameplay improvements.

The controls are as follows:
Left to move the falling number one column to the left, right for right.
Up to send the number all the way to the bottom (hard drop). There is no soft drop; it caused too many bugs.
Enter to pause, clear to quit.

The object of the game is to get all the numbers at the bottom of the screen to equal 0. This is done by maneuvering the falling number so that it lands in a column with a number so that the sum mod 10 of the two numbers is 0. I know it sounds confusing, but you'll get the hang of it. The game and all the needed programs are attached in the form of a group. Oh, and the minimum score is -999. Any lower than that and you automatically fail.
And please, read the ReadMe.

Screen shot!:

Both.

Those two programs are ones I use in almost every one of my other programs, so the space savings really make themselves known when you've got a bunch of my programs on the calc. I'm not dismissing anything you've said, these are valid concerns (aieee! I sound like a suit!) I'm just explaining them. Also, the If dim( was so that rand(15 wouldn't change Ans. Also, have you found any bugs?

Is there anything your particularly looking for? A certain part that you want to see if can be made faster, parts to be made smaller, improvements that you've thought of but not sure about?

First, ( I dont know if you have already done this ) delete ALL closing brackets and quotes from the end of each line.

First, ( I dont know if you have already done this ) delete ALL closing brackets and quotes from the end of each line.

He's actually quite good at that as far as I can tell.

prgmDELVAR:

• DelVar L1DelVar L2DelVar L3DelVar L4DelVar L5DelVar L6 can be changed to ClrAllLists (in 2nd+[MEM]). Put that at the end of the chain of Delvar 's, of course.

prgmNAME:

• As meishe91 suggested, chain all those Disp 's together.

prgmZER0ES:

• Any reason you need the line SetUpEditor∟Z? 5→dim(∟Z creates LZ for you.
• seq(randInt(1,9),Q,1,2→L3 is simply randInt(1,9,2→L3
• DelVar ∟Z:Disp "CHEAT!can be optimized to DelVar LZDisp "CHEAT!
• seq(randInt(1,9),Q,1,8→L1 is simply randInt(1,9,8→L1
• 12randInt(1,8→C:C-6→C is smaller as 12randInt(1,8)-6→C
• For(Q,6,90,12:Text(‾1,56,Q,sub("123456789",L1(.5+Q/12),1:End is smaller and faster as For(Q,1,8:Text(‾1,56,12Q-6,sub("123456789",L1(Q),1:End
• If D and not(N can become If Dnot(N.
• Repeat K=105 can become While K-105
• The second line in (K=34)-(K=25)+∟Z(Z→∟Z(Z:∟Z(Z)-27(∟Z(Z)>28)+27(2>∟Z(Z→∟Z(Z can use Ans instead of LZ(Z).

Oh, okay. See, that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Also, the reason I'm using SetUpEditor is that it UnArchives LZ if it it exists in Archive, does nothing if it exists in Archive, and creates it with zero elements if it doesn't exist, which is why the following line is 5->dim(LZ

Ah, I see.

Also, I worked it out, and chaining the Disps is the exact same size as creating separate lines for them, because when chaining, the 2 bytes saved by not putting :Disp is offset by having to add ", instead. Unless it's faster one way or another, I don't see a reason to change it.

I think it is faster.

Also, the problem with While loops is that they test at the beginning instead of the end, so the savings are counteracted by having to put 0->K before everyone of them.

In that particular case you're fine because (I think) K cannot be 105 at that point.

Also, see my post above for more optimizations (particularly with seq( and For( loops).

Oh, here's a big one: Instead of putting prgmDELVAR in a separate program, put it at the very end of prgmZER0ES, with a label. Each time you call it, just Goto the label. Once it hits the end of the program, control returns to wherever the label was called.