[MUD-Dev] Languages for MUD drivers
bruce at puremagic.com
bruce at puremagic.com
Mon Nov 15 21:45:05 CET 1999
On November 15, 1999, "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent at netdive.com> wrote:
> As my quest for the perfect M* server design continues (I've been a
> deep lurker on the list for over one year, though some of you might
> remember my interest at one time in porting LambdaMOO to Java (done,
> but not the panacea I hoped)) I am more and more convinced that the
> crucial parts are the underlying (implementation) and visible (world-
> building) languages - ideally both being the same.
Very much a familiar story! Main difference is that I'm coming from the
ColdC camp rather than the MOO side, but they aren't that different at all
really.
> A lot of the issues M* server designers and implementors struggle
> with are in fact active areas of programming language research. These
> are in approximate order of importance (for M* writers!)
> - distributed processing support (for large worlds)
> - concurrent processing support (for reactive worlds)
> - object orientation (for modular worlds)
> - object persistence (as in MOO)
> - run-time mutability (aka dynamic recompilation, as in MOO/ColdC)
> - reflective capabilities (so programs can modify themselves)
> - security (to enable in-game access to world code by 'wizards')
>
> If we assume a language with the above properties, writing a M*
> driver is almost trivial. A thin layer of network code will handle
> client connections; a command parser will probably provide the most
> challenging exercise in low-level programming, writing core
> character/monster/item classes would almost belong to the 'world
> design' category.
I agree with all of those things above, although I'm of the opinion that
with a good language, a number of them can be relegated to the libraries
rather than being integral to the language. One thing I didn't like about
Cold was that too many things were integral to the language, and often,
there was at least one instance in which that made things extremely
painful.
> If you agree (or disagree) with the above assessment, or have
> pointers to languages which would make good candidates for
> implementing a M* server, please speak up. ;)
I like TOM (as do a few other people who will speak up if they feel like
it, but can remain anonymous if they prefer). Info on TOM can be found at
http://www.gerbil.org/tom/
Once I've found motivation to do anything outside of work beyond sleep,
TOM is what I'm planning on using to write a new server.
- Bruce
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist - MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
More information about the mud-dev-archive
mailing list