[MUD-Dev] "short" Introductory Message (fwd)

Jeff Kesselman jeffk at tenetwork.com
Sat Jun 7 21:55:22 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

At 07:27 PM 6/7/97 PST8PDT, you wrote:
>:E works as a series of definitions of entities within a model world.
>:Entities can inherit features of other entities. That's basically all
>:there is to it, and such concepts will doubtless be familiar to most
>:people on this list. The interpreter enforces very little in the way of
>:type or sanity checking. Not only are objects, doors, monsters and rooms
>:described in E, but the grammar and syntax of the language used to access
>:the mud (the parser, effectively) are also defined.
>Out of curiousity, is that 'E' related to the programming language 'E'
>which has been a hit on Amigas in the last few years?

And are EITHER of those versions of the E language that has been released
to the net which is a kind-of-superset of JAVA?

(Who will be sure NEVER to name a lanaguage E)

>The issue of strong typing has been discussed in this list before. I seem
>to be pretty much alone in desiring the safety and execution speed of
>compile-time type checking, versus some (unneeded and unwanted by me!)
>supposed advantages of sloppy typing. :-)

I'm mixed on this.... my big issue is that in an object-ortiented labuage
compilke-time checking means compile time checking for method
avauilablility.  Ilike Cold's Smalltalk like facility to add new methdos to
an obejct on the fly and not check for availability therefor til run-time.

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list