Re: CircleMUD Scripting

From: Chris Jacobson (
Date: 12/25/98

On 12/25/98 6:29 PM, Invincibill ( stated:

>i agree with dak. javascript can get really ugly and hard to read.
>i really like the idea of a mud assembler/compiler. granted it
>it would be alot of work, but i think it would be worth it. you
>would have much greater flexibility with it.  and since javascript
>is exactly that, an interpreted script, you are limited to the foresight
>of the developers of it.(no bash on the javascript developers here, i'm
>sure they did a great job).
>with a mud assembler/compiler, it would be like an actual programming
>language.  i really really like this idea.

JavaScript with JSRef is expandable - you can add your own methods, and
classes.  It's also object oriented, precompiled before execution (and
able to be saved in compiled state) like Java.  It has a garbage
collector, is thread safe if you chose, and much more.  Take a look at it
before considering it non-viable; we're dumping mobprogs, halting
advancements on AvPScript (AvP's derivative of DGScripts), in favor of

>but is it better to build it in C? or C++?  ideally, we would want it
>to work with the current version of C but also be integratable(sp? is
>even a word)into a newer version and that newer version may be C++.

Remember, C is compat with C++ compilers with little or no changes, while
C++ will not compile on a C compiler.
<opinion flames=root@localhost> However, C++ is by far the superior
language </opinion>

>maybe we can talk to Melvin about the one he was going to use for MUD++.
>hell, he may even be interested in helping out.  assuming we can get
>of him. i never could.

I looked at it; its good, but not great.  Needs a lot of work, not to
mention a compiler.  Currently it only does MudASM to MudOpcode, which it

- Chris Jacobson

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     |  |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST