[MUD-Dev] Re: Fallacy Watch and DevMUD Vision (was Re: ... CoolComponentCore)

Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no> Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>
Wed Nov 4 00:09:45 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998

Jon Leonard wrote:
> There isn't much of an efficiency penalty either.  In a more static system,
> loads are a one-time event, and fairly fast from a user perspective.  The
> run-time cost of calling from one module to another is on par with C++
> virtual method calls.

No, that cost could come with no inlining, high traffic and primary cache
misses. (are you going to use call-backs every time you access a value?
> We haven't yet seen how much of a burden it is on module definitions.
> I expect that it doesn't impose any more overhead than well defined
> reusable modules have anyway.  We'll see.

I hope so :)  I expect you to prove me wrong!
> Given the costs, I think that "It's cool" might be reason enough.

Maybe you are right, given the audience.  If code is available in non
monolithic library form, as you indicated, then there will of course be no
problem even if you find that you have to ditch dynamic loading for some
modules.  Maybe DevCore can be useful for me as well? Joy! :-))

Assuming: generic ?C++? library -> static module -> dynamic module.

( -> == "used in" )

> DevMUD as I see it has 4 levels of support for a feature:
> Required in all modules
> Supported by some modules
> Not yet implemented
> Forbidden
> You think putting Unicode in one of the middle two categories is a problem?

I don't think.  HEHE.  Is abstracting class TextString and Char a problem?
*shrug* Not if you want to use abstract baseclasses in modules I suppose. Do
I want to do that?  Not really...  Unless you want to solve this with
#ifdef's and a full recompile?

Is Unicode regexp libraries available at all btw?

> I think these are significant decisions, but I don't think they're nearly
> as problematic as you seem to think they are.

I was playing a devils advocate.  Except when it comes to efficiently
reusable modules. (beyond communication protocols)  Interoperability is
hard, and assumes that something is known... or possibly that somebody will
translate (adapter)...


More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list