[MUD-Dev] ColdStore. Belated response from a developer.

[Jay Carlson]

"Miroslav Silovic" <silovic at zesoi.fer.hr> writes on April 22, 2000 5:31 PM:

[much snipped]

> Yes, textual MUDs are bandwidth-bound. However, this list is not only
> about textual MUDs. Also, I think that bandwidth-bound MUDs are not
> interesting any more (because even MOO, once that memory became cheap,
> CPUs became fast, and codebase became slightly more optimised than it
> used to be, is now bandwidth-bound - so why bother inventing a better
> mousetrap?)

I agree that LambdaMOO is often bandwidth-bound, as it's usually
instantiated.  However, Ben and I hoped that by doing those 200-400+%
speedups (and some memory reductions), new kinds of things could be
implemented in MOO.  For instance, really heavy list and string processing
wasn't something you'd reasonably plan to do; if a project seemed to require
it, you'd replan or discard those ideas.

It's quite possible that the expressiveness of the MOO language (or dev
tools) is what's blocking now, instead of execution performance.

Jay




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev