On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Brian Hartvigsen wrote:
> [snip ease of use stuff]
Certainly. The idea isn't to make CircleMUD harder to use, but advance
its architecture to enforce a better design and make the higher level Mud
stuff easier. Optimally, the game mechanics, etc., could be (and normally
would be) implemented by someone completely oblivious to the underlying
complexity (which, of course, isn't really all _that_ complex). The CM
kernel wouldn't implement the game mechanics, which is what most people
are interested in and would impose only a minimum of requirements on the
game mechanics. The game mechanics would either be implemented via a
scripting language, or by modules written in C or C++ or whatever other
language we could provide bindings for (regardless of what language the
kernel is written in). Maximize flexibility, minimize the complexity that
the end-user programmer sees, and with the community working on producing
a wide base of different modules, you can end up with some very
interesting, different, and fun Muds with a minimum of long hours of code
removal and rewriting.
> And why change to a different language? C/C++ are the most used
> language next to Assembly (from what my teacher told me.)
C and C++ are used more than Assembly these days. At least, from
prototyping to implementation. Optimization might be done with the
assembly output from the C/C++ compiler. As for what language to use, the
only serious competitors are C and C++ at this point.
-dak
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT