|
There are people developing muds in many different languages. Take away all the derivatives (which are generally bound to using the same language as their parent codebase) and you'll probably find a fairly even distribution between languages.
It depends what you're trying to do. A programming language is just a tool - and a good tool for one problem may be a poor choice for another. The trick is to first identify exactly what you're trying to achieve, and then decide which language is best suited - because as Kastagaar is fond of saying, when the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
When you're talking about muds using scripted languages (such as LPC), you'll find that speed can indeed become an issue, as can memory usage. If you're paying a monthly hosting fee, such a difference is often not negligible. However that is only one point - when chosing which language to use, you should consider all aspects of development. For example:
* What programming languages do the development team already know (or are interested in learning).
* What crossover is there with non-mud-related stuff (for example, if you developed a mud in Java, would it aid your professional career - and would skills gained in your professional career make it easier for you to develop the mud?).
* What sort of books and online documentation are available for the language.
* What beneficial tools and utilities are available for developing with the language.
* What quality and quantity of mud-related software is already available in that language - and what sort of license restrictions does it have.
* What specific benefits does the language offer, and how well do these fit with what you're trying to achieve. For example, if you're using an OO design (as many of the newer scratch-written muds seem to be), you're going to find it more difficult to use a language without support for OO features.
There is no "ideal" language for mud development, so don't believe anyone who tries to tell you there is.
|