[MUD-Dev] Re: PDMud thread summary

[Darrin Hyrup]

At 07:44 PM 10/23/98 EDT, ApplePiMan at aol.com wrote:
>At 10/22/98 9:23 PM Chris Gray (cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA) 
>altered the fabric of reality by uttering:
>
>>I believe there are two aspects to the OO-ness of such a system. The
>>world the system models will contain lots of objects (swords, books,
>>furniture, decorations, etc. etc.), so an OO approach seems desireable.
>>The question of single versus multiple inheritance there will be quite
>>contentious, I believe. I would vote for single inheritance (because
>>of its higher efficiency), along with interfaces (like the Java ones).
>
>Good point... but I would tend to lean toward multiple inheritance 
>because mixin classes could simplify the definition of complex objects. 
>That's not something I'd care to start a Holy War over, though... I can 
>live with either.

I agree.  95% of the time, single inheritance is perfect, but 5% of the
time, there is no better way than multiple inheritance (at least not
without re-inventing major parts of the wheel.)

Lets concentrate on the low level driver for now, we can debate internal
language later.  Besides, if we end up doing the language as a plugin, we
can always support different language models, as long as the bytecode is
the same.

Best,

Darrin