|
Objective-C is yummy.
Large-scale LISP projects are not for the timid. While very possible, they do require a certain degree of organization not common in mud dev teams. Further, I'd argue, despite the fact that LISP (Common Lisp with CLOS, in fact) is my primary language, that it is not really oriented towards state-heavy code. The more functional, the better.
Also, you can't compile LISP (not completely, parts can be) since it is symbolic... It would be nearly impossible to manage (I guess it could be done, but you wouldn't get much of a speed increase). I think, more importantly, is that the speed difference between good LISP interpreters and, say, Java, is not so high that that alone would cripple it.
C++ has exceptions.
On the other hand, muds are a fairly unique system data structure wise, and specially designed algorithms and data structures will get MUCH better performance.
I'd aruge that C/C++ definitely leads in total codebases, even avoiding derivatives, as it was the so dominant for so long. Whether new projects are fairly diverse is beyond me.
Speed is negligible if you're recoding Circle. If you're using hardcore AI with NP-approximation algorithms for path finding and planning, throwing around needs and decision trees for mobs, etc, that speed is going to matter. All the moreso for most muds, which run on shared hosting.
That said, I use C#. *shrugs*
|