From: George Greer (
Date: 06/20/99

On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Daniel A. Koepke wrote:

>I don't see the humor.  In fact, I was banking on after the JavaScript
>port, we'd do it in PHP and in 6502 assembly.  Frankly, I find the lack of
>support for the Atari 400 a glaring omission and downright apalling.
>Another language to consider would be IBM's exquisite APL.  Anything you
>need an extended character set or Unicode to write in is just dandy in my
>sanguine tome bound in freshly-flayed COBOL programmer skins.

My TI-85 has been begging for a Z80 port lately.  I doubt it would be very
useful though.

>> 2.  Java will compile/execute anywhere.
>Write once, crash everywhere.  I've seen very little Java run reliably.

Reliably crash does at least score one point for consistency.

>> 4.  Better organization and encapsulation (Also in C++)
>Or worse.  It depends upon how you write your code.  Some of the ugliest
>piece of sh!t code I've ever seen has been C++.  But, then, it's almost
>always the person and not the language.  (The exceptions being the ugly
>template syntax and the entire Perl language.)

I was thinking about[1] a Perl port yesterday.  One of the really nice
things would be that you could execute arbitrary Perl code through 'eval'
while online to aid in debugging or just do something unique.  That would
be quite cool and someone has done a Perl MUD.

>> 5.  Tons more features than C that are portable, like sound, graphics,
>>     etc.
>Certainly "built-in", although not every platform provides these, and
>Java3D and the Java Media whassit aren't exactly functional.

C portability problems? Use autoconf.

George Greer            | The Ceramic Mouse & Snippets   |

[1] "thinking about" does not mean "thinking about doing" but rather
    examining the pros and cons of an actual implementation.

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

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