[MUD-Dev] [DGN] [NEWBIE] Suggestions on (OO) Server Design.

Sean Middleditch elanthis at awesomeplay.com
Tue Apr 9 22:04:08 New Zealand Standard Time 2002


On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 13:53, Kwon Ekstrom wrote:
> From: "Sean Middleditch" <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>

> I've done alot of testing for a variety of areas, and if there is
> any degredation it's only a handful of milliseconds per thousand
> iterations.  The OOP only becomes an issue when you constantly
> retype an object.  Most functions don't require you to type an
> object many times.  In more complex areas, that might become an
> issue.
 
> There are also a variety of ways I use my OOP model to shortcut
> what I'd have to do in a procedural level.  There's probably alot
> of speed advantages I would get if I used c++ instead of java, but
> there are several benefits to using java.

Ah, Java.  I can see some of the Java benefits outweighing the cost
of speed.  My small mind, I tend to only think of C++ and C, sorry.
^,^

One issue, with regards to a big OO model in the engine, that is
going to be a pain, that you w/ Java may not have to worry about, is
memory management, especially when you integrate a scripting
language.  I'm writing Scriptix specifically for MUDix (a MUD
client) and AweMUD (a MUD engine), and I know AweMUD will need some
serious rewriting in places in order to get it to play nicely with
Scriptix' GC memory management. (Granted, AweMUD generally needs to
be rewritten anyhow, some of the design decisions I made when I was
15 are still haunting me today...  ~,^)

Simply, if I had written AweMUD w/ Scriptix in mind, AweMUD would be
maybe 1/5th its size, and have lots of its current "functionality"
in scripts instead of hard code and loadable extensions.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list