[MUD-Dev] FW: [DGD]C# vs. LPC

[Christopher Allen]

-----Original Message-----
From: dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com
[mailto:dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com]On Behalf Of Felix A. Croes
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:33 AM
To: dgd at list.imaginary.com
Subject: RE: [DGD]C# vs. LPC


"Christopher Allen" <ChristopherA at skotos.net> wrote:

> Felix A. Croes wrote:
> > Is there perhaps a more comprehensive overview available on the web?
> > The two links available at the bottom of that page do not execute on
> > my computer, and the page mentioned above does not, in itself, make
> > sense.  I cannot tell, for instance, if LPC also allows "for typed,
> > extensible metadata that can be applied to any object."
>
> The two files were self-extracting zip files. I will send the two
> files decompressed to you under a separate email (if anyone else wants
> the files, let me know).

I've browsed through them...  I think this started with a couple of
C++ programmers -- Anders Hejlsberg and Scott Wiltamuth -- getting
frustrated with Java and hacking together a new language, which is
somewhere in between Java and C++.

Like Java, it has interfaces and single inheritance.  From C++, it
inherits a number of goodies, among which are the C preprocessor,
overloading of predefined predefined operators with the <operator>
keyword, structs, function pointers, and a general sense of
unfinished-ness: unlike Java, it is not intended to be closed and
complete.

There is no documentation of a predefined runtime environment, and my
guess is that none is forthcoming: this is just a language like C or
C++, no more.  It is strongly bound to Windows, naturally.

To answer your question, I do not think that C# has anything that could
be of interest for LPC that Java does not also have, the most important
of which are, in my opinion: object types; constants and interfaces as
a replacement for the C preprocessor; non-persistent objects that are
garbage collected (of course, in a MUD persistence is what you want,
so garbage collected objects are an ambiguous improvement).

LPC is a very simple language.  Java is a simple language with some
complex rules under the hood.  C# is, at this point, a rather
sloppily-designed language that is closer to "C++ without pointers"
than to "Java with improvements."

Regards,
Dworkin

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




-----Original Message-----
From: dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com
[mailto:dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com]On Behalf Of Felix A. Croes
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:40 AM
To: dgd at list.imaginary.com
Subject: RE: [DGD]C# vs. LPC


"Felix A. Croes" <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:

>[...]
> LPC is a very simple language.  Java is a simple language with some
> complex rules under the hood.  C# is, at this point, a rather
> sloppily-designed language that is closer to "C++ without pointers"
> than to "Java with improvements."

P.S. I've found nothing in these documents about the typed, extensible
     metadata that I was promised.

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



(Cross-post from the DGD List) 

-----Original Message-----
From: dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com
[mailto:dgd-admin at list.imaginary.com]On Behalf Of Felix A. Croes
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 12:09 PM
To: dgd at list.imaginary.com
Subject: RE: [DGD]C# vs. LPC


"Felix A. Croes" <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:

> P.S. I've found nothing in these documents about the typed, extensible
>      metadata that I was promised.

Ah, they're called attributes!

They look like the sort of programmer toy that can wreak utter havoc
with clean language design.  I can now say that LPC does not allow
for extensible metadata in the C# sense, though the Skotos version
of DGD actually does have bitflag attributes for data.

Regards,
Dworkin

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





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