[MUD-Dev] Re: Why modules? (Was: Inheritable modules)

Chris Gray cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
Sat Oct 31 12:53:47 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998


[Shane King/Thandor:]

 >True, OO isn't language specific, although the choice of language can
 >certainly help. I'm a little surprised so much debate has gone into the
 >choice of language at this stage actually. Isn't it better to come up with
 >a design and then pick the best language for implementing that design
 >(modifying it where necessary since a perfect language is unlikely to
 >exist)? Why build around the limitations of (for example) C at this stage?
 >I certainly haven't seen enough design to know for sure what language will
 >be the most appropriate for DevMUD. It seems a shame to throw things away
 >just because they can't be done in one particular language, before enough
 >is known to even say that language will be the best one to use.

Sorry for the long quite and short response, but...

I think you've got it backwards here. The details of the interface seem
to have settled on a simple C-compatible function call because that
choice *allows* the most flexibility and language choice for those
writing modules (and even the core). The concensus I've seen is that
the writers of modules and the core are free to use whatever language
and tools they feel best suit the job. That's good. Forcing the semantics
of any one higher-level language on the interface restricts everything
to that language, and that is bad.

--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation. - me

Chris Gray     cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list