[MUD-Dev] TECH: programming languages (was: Re: TECH: STL / Heaps, etc.)
Robin Lee Powell
rlpowell at digitalkingdom.org
Sun Aug 19 11:34:10 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 03:45:38PM +0200, Ola Fosheim Gr?stad wrote:
> Bruce Mitchener wrote:
>> Ola Fosheim Gr?stad wrote:
>>> Bruce Mitchener wrote:
>>>> * Has anyone used Prolog or a logic language in their mud?
Depends on how broad you want to use those terms. Oz, the language
I'm using for my mud, is enough of a logic language that there is a
trivial translation of any Prolog program into it. Or so I've been
>>> Not really sure how a different imperative implementation
>>> language is going to get you to a new type of server?
>> Languages impose constraints upon the space of what is easily
>> achievable and their assumptions shape the design of a system.
>> While many of the differences will be within the implementation,
>> that doesn't render them irrelevant.
> Hmm... I think most imperative languages are rather Algol like,
> but I guess you are right in the sense that a lot of languages
> produce a lot of disturbing source-code bloat when you try to use
> certain approaches. Efficiency considerations and the lack of
> design in C++ which leads to horrible function objects is one
> example... (For some reason it seems to be modern to promote
> verbosity as if that improved legibility; STL, Java.)
> If set-oriented languages had been efficient... :-) Dream on.
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev