Mud Languages

Greg Munt greg at uni-corn.demon.co.uk
Wed Aug 6 18:28:32 New Zealand Standard Time 1997


Contributors to my project have decided that using a language geared 
specifically towards the application will be beneficial. Whether this 
language will be used to implement all or part of the mud has not been 
decided.

I'm thinking that designing a language blindly would be a Bad Thing. 
Since subscribers to this list would probably have wide-reaching 
experiences in many languages, I'd be interested in, say, a list of the 
top five best and worst features of a language (features specific to a 
certain language, in addition to generic attributes).

Most contributors to my project have not much more experience than C/C++, 
Pascal, et al. I'm more interested in features of 'older' languages, 
those that are now seldom used (principally because although the language 
may be old and no-longer used, this does not mean that it is bad, or that 
certain of its features are bad - for example, I believe that C++ took 
features from C, BCPL and Algol...), mainly because those features *may* 
be less familiar and/or forgotten.

Contributors are mainly going for either the LPC approach (code something 
close to what we understand (i.e. C), but with some enhancements), or the 
Java approach (code something close to what we understand (i.e. C), 
removing some of (what we consider to be) its bad points, such as 
pointers). There seems to be no 'design the language for its intended 
users/function/application', which is something I feel that needs to be 
part of the equation, somewhat.

What are the tradeoffs involved between implementing the entire mud in a 
custom-designed language (a la LP/Cold), or only implementing part of it 
in that language (cf Tiny et al, I guess)?

Is C++ actually a worthwhile language to implement a mud in? I'd be 
interested in anyone trying to write a mud in standard language other 
than C/C++ or Java. Also, in people's experiences with full-on OOPLs - 
could a custom-designed language similar to, say, Eiffel, be used to 
effectively implement a mud?

The model I am thinking of is an extra layer added onto the standard 6-layer 
VM. This would involve a driver/lib combination like LP/Cold, yes?

Note: when I joined this list at the back end of March, it had a dying 
thread called 'MUD Languages'. Would that be of interest to me, do 
you think? If so, is it in any way possible to get a copy of just that 
particular thread?

Another note: I seem to remember quite a long 'Languages' thread around 
April/May too. I also remember it caused a number of religious "My 
language is better than your language" battles. I hope this post doesn't 
start them up again :) (Particularly considering that any potential replies 
will me mainly subjective...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      More isn't better; less is more.
          Scratch muds are stock muds, without the life experience.
 The morons aren't taking over the community - the morons *are* the community!







More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list