[MUD-Dev] Scripting languages

Ling Lo Ling at argonaut.com
Fri Jun 27 18:49:23 CEST 2003

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:

> While it's working the other way around, using a scripting
> language for the entire MUD, the very badly-named POO (Pythonic
> MOO) is a nice engine, and fairly small--an earlier version I have
> somewhere around here is even smaller, and still provided all the
> necessary MUD services.

Python supplies an awful lot of handy default libraries which tend
to make the code fairly small.

> Lua's not as pleasant to code in as Python, but it's about as
> fast.  If you're doing most of the logic in the scripting
> language, there's no pressing reason to code the objects in a
> lower-level language, you're just making more work for yourself
> and gaining little or no efficiency.

Lua is smaller and faster than Python.  A very nice binding between
Python and C++ is Boost.Python
(http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/), it's very simple to use.
There's also boost.luabind (http://luabind.sourceforge.net/)
although I'm unaware of how stable, elegant and usable it is.

Here's a nice little page for checking out languages:


MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the mud-dev-archive mailing list