[DGD] Java or LPC (DGD)?

[Ben Chambers]

I apologize. I didn't see your entire message when I wrote my response and
the response which I wrote was rather brief.  Hopefully, this reply will be
more sufficient.

-----Original Message-----
From: dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com [mailto:dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com] On
Behalf Of Felix A. Croes
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:33 AM
To: dgd at list.imaginary.com
Subject: Re: [DGD] Java or LPC (DGD)?

> "Ben Chambers" <bjchamb at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Java
> >
> >[...]
> >
> > + Better syntax for objects (in my opinion, the C++/Java object system
is
> > much cleaner than the one used in LPC)

> What in particular do you consider to be better about the syntax?

It is a more standard syntax and as such has been tested and tried to a
greater extent.  Personally, I can handle either syntax, but the problem
which I have with the LPC syntax is that it removes the distinction between
a file and an object.  In my opinion, the file and object should be separate
concepts, but this is a very minor distinction.


> > - Possibly slower?

> LPC used to be faster, but these days it's probably the other way around.


> > LPC
> >
> > + Designed explicitly for a MUD Server
> >
> > + Gives persistence for free

> DGD has persistence to a degree that is not possible with Java.
DGD was written in C++, and provides that degree of persistence.  It is
possible, therefore to get it in Java, but I agree that DGD has it built-in
and easily accessible in a manner that would not be replicable in Java
without some degree of work.


> >[...]
> > Are there any points for either of the two that I missed?  Which of the
> > points that I put in there aren't really significant?  Which language >
would
> > you recommend?

> - Java is multi-threaded
Java is only multi-threaded if you code it right, so this is a minor issue,
especially since it is my understanding that DGD is headed in this direction
anyways.

> - LPC has multiple inheritance
This is my one big complaint with Java.  In my opinion C++ treats
inheritance correctly, and Java's idea of interfaces and stuff is just
confusing.
> - Java has interfaces, LPC has include files
Java has objects that you import, LPC has include files that act like
inheritance.  C++ has the right idea, with include files and then
inheritance being a distinct concept.

> - Java has much stronger typing (a bit too strong for a persistent
>   system, perhaps)
I'm not sure I understand.  I know what you mean by stronger typing, but how
exactly would that be a problem in a persistent system?  Would it be a
problem when you try to upgrade an object while the system is running?  It
is true that this could be a problem in Java, but since DGD is written in
C++ and has managed to solve this problem, it should be possible to solve
it, although it may be more difficult.

> - Java has more basic datatypes (for example, different integer types)
For a Mud this shouldn't be an issue, should it?

> - Java's error handling is more fine-grained; DGD has atomic error
>   handling
How exactly does DGD's error handling work?  I couldn't make a decision on
which was better without a better understanding of what you mean by "DGD has
atomic error handling"

> And I would use DGD, of course. :)

> Regards,
> Dworkin
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd


_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd