Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

03-19-2003, 10:34 AM

Like fork(), eh? Anyways, quite a fair response to the question; although the main purpose of my question wasn’t to ask everyone what the was best language to code a mud in, it was more of asking the individuals that use these “other” languages why they chose it and what benefits they believe it brings to creation of MUD development. On the other side I wanted to be fair and see if the people that chose C/C++ did so for reasons other than familiarity, i.e. Why they decided it was the best language suited.

I have noticed speed issues when dealing with some heavy LP code, I also believe that it all goes back to size of the MUD itself as well, so inability of the server to operate in such a limited resource environment would be a good reason to shy away from those “interpreted” languages.

The rest of your post lists good pointers that people should follow when choosing the language, though I think that many people do so for just one or two of the reasons on the list (I am not excluded from this comment).

As to there being no “ideal” language for mud programming, I agree, but so often do I see people scoffing at users of odd languages. One such is someone most of us know, whom I am not going to name. If you put the idiocy of the person’s attitude aside, as well as the surrounding debate of the licensing of his code, the code itself is actually quite a wonderful example of the programming language being just a tool.

Your post basically sums up my opinion on why I use the language I use, in fact those are some of the biggest plusses of using an “interpreted” language. While I admit to having very little Java experience, I do know that speed wise it rocks compared to some of the other “interpreted” languages.

I agree, the virtues of using a language such as LISP could be worth the penalty that it takes, even that penalty may not be so profound. Correct me if I am wrong but some newer LISPs (and SCHEME) languages are usually compiled to native code and if written carefully can be quite comparable to other native-compiled languages. The fact that there isn’t much support is a downer, but seems like it would make for quite a fun adventure.

Usually most “interpreted” languages have the ability to do such things. I myself started programming on an LP Mud. (If you don’t count Qbasic , Pascal for BBS Door games and small shell scripting.) That may be one of the largest influences on why I chose the language that I have coded my mud in.

I use Pike, which has some of the same virtues as other such languages (albeit not as fast as something like Java) and has a lower learning curve for someone coming from an LPC or C background.

The other day though, I was browsing across the net and came across the Ruby web page (I had heard of Ruby, just not explored it), so decided to read the manual and play with it for a little bit. I absolutely loved some of the features and the syntax. I think when I finish this server in Pike I will do it in Ruby as well. I am a sad person, an obvious glutton for punishment, that cannot help but torture himself by learning languages by coding a mud server. Pity Me. =)

03-19-2003, 10:34 AM	#5
kaylus1 Posts: n/a	Like fork(), eh? Anyways, quite a fair response to the question; although the main purpose of my question wasn’t to ask everyone what the was best language to code a mud in, it was more of asking the individuals that use these “other” languages why they chose it and what benefits they believe it brings to creation of MUD development. On the other side I wanted to be fair and see if the people that chose C/C++ did so for reasons other than familiarity, i.e. Why they decided it was the best language suited. I have noticed speed issues when dealing with some heavy LP code, I also believe that it all goes back to size of the MUD itself as well, so inability of the server to operate in such a limited resource environment would be a good reason to shy away from those “interpreted” languages. The rest of your post lists good pointers that people should follow when choosing the language, though I think that many people do so for just one or two of the reasons on the list (I am not excluded from this comment). As to there being no “ideal” language for mud programming, I agree, but so often do I see people scoffing at users of odd languages. One such is someone most of us know, whom I am not going to name. If you put the idiocy of the person’s attitude aside, as well as the surrounding debate of the licensing of his code, the code itself is actually quite a wonderful example of the programming language being just a tool. Your post basically sums up my opinion on why I use the language I use, in fact those are some of the biggest plusses of using an “interpreted” language. While I admit to having very little Java experience, I do know that speed wise it rocks compared to some of the other “interpreted” languages. I agree, the virtues of using a language such as LISP could be worth the penalty that it takes, even that penalty may not be so profound. Correct me if I am wrong but some newer LISPs (and SCHEME) languages are usually compiled to native code and if written carefully can be quite comparable to other native-compiled languages. The fact that there isn’t much support is a downer, but seems like it would make for quite a fun adventure. Usually most “interpreted” languages have the ability to do such things. I myself started programming on an LP Mud. (If you don’t count Qbasic , Pascal for BBS Door games and small shell scripting.) That may be one of the largest influences on why I chose the language that I have coded my mud in. I use Pike, which has some of the same virtues as other such languages (albeit not as fast as something like Java) and has a lower learning curve for someone coming from an LPC or C background. The other day though, I was browsing across the net and came across the Ruby web page (I had heard of Ruby, just not explored it), so decided to read the manual and play with it for a little bit. I absolutely loved some of the features and the syntax. I think when I finish this server in Pike I will do it in Ruby as well. I am a sad person, an obvious glutton for punishment, that cannot help but torture himself by learning languages by coding a mud server. Pity Me. =)