[MUD-Dev] MUD Design Fundamentals (Was: Looking for
Jon A. Lambert
jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Fri Sep 5 01:01:47 New Zealand Standard Time 1997
On 31 Aug 97 at 8:39, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> The major difference however, is in attitudes towards OO among humans,
> not in languages.
> The scandinavian school focus on Object Oriented Analysis. They focus
> on objects as a mental way for the designer to structure information in
> a manner that is suitable for reasoning and implementation. Simula was
> (as the name suggests) designed for making programming simulations
> easier. Hopefully programmers write object oriented programs even when
> using ansi-C.
> The american school focused on OO as a manner of extending programming-
> languages with new mechanisms, abstract datatypes etc...
FWIW, the current American school does seem to focus on OO Analysis
and OO Design. The last two courses I've taken made only passing
references to languages and that was 3 years ago. My focus is
certainly on OO design approaches. I am designing a mud programming
language that is OOP enabled, event driven, partially concurrent,
implicitly persistent and explicitly transactional.
The fact that I learned programming the "old" way has been a
disadvantage. I suspect newcomers to programming have the advantage
of not being forced to discard ingrained programming and design
> As far as I can recollect there is at least 3 approaches to OO languages:
> - class based
My language implementation will fall into this general category with
> - cloning based
> - actor based
> I prefer the class based as it better conveys how humans perceive the world.
> It is important to remember that OO is only something typical for the human,
> not something that is typical of the world or the computer.
As do I. In addition, I find class objects very useful.
Jon A. Lambert
More information about the MUD-Dev