On 3/8/98 3:26 PM, Daniel W. Burke (dwb@IX.NETCOM.COM) stated:
>But I can fix that, that's not the reason for this email. What I've been
>wondering is, is it really worth it to convert the mud to c++ just so I can
>turn char_data, room_data, obj_data and others into classes? Other then
>'cleaner looking' code, is there really any advantage? Like the potential
>for more flexability in making things do stuff?
>
>Last time this was braught up, only one message that I remember seeing got
>sent to the list, and readability was the basic reason given by someone for
>converting to c++. If that's all there is to it, it's not really worth it
>since I'm the only one that reads my code.
I have converted the majority of my code to C++, and am continuing to do
so. The flexibility it offers is extreme - constructors and destructors
replacing those messy CREATE() macros with setup and free_whatever()
functions, and polymorphism (several functions of same name, same
function, but taking different arguments) also cuts down on the number of
different function names needed.
I highly recommend it, even if just for readability. I am also the only
one who reads my code, but I gained a keener understanding of CircleMUD
by having to look at ALL of the code (over the course of time) during my
conversions. Even the extra readability it provides just me speeds my
development. Plus the classes and other C++ features are just so
wonderful, you'll find yourself having a lot of fun in the process of
conversion, and it will make future development much easier.
- Chris Jacobson
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST