Re: Modulizing "Added Spells, Skills, Commands, etc"

From: Daniel A. Koepke (
Date: 08/19/00

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Treker wrote:

> Then we are in agreement that CircleMud must change with the times as
> new technology and better ways of doing things are introduced.

No, we don't agree on that at all.  That isn't what I said.  Please don't
rephrase my statements for me -- it amounts to putting words into my
mouth.  I said *if* we were to begin CircleMUD *from the beginning* we
would *probably* do so in C++.

I made no statements about C++ being a "new" or "better" technology.  It
is, in fact, neither.  Object oriented programming has been around for a
lot longer than C++, and C++ has been around for quite a long time.  OOP
is not better than procedural programming; it's different and well-suited
for certain tasks.  Having said that, yes, Muds are well-suited for an
object oriented approach.  It's not necessarily a better approach than the
one we have already taken.

Most importantly, though, I did not use the word "must."  I did not make
an absolute statement about the future of CircleMUD.  I cannot stress that
enough.  The last thing I need is people running around saying CircleMUD
is going to be rewritten in C++ this very instant because one of the
developers said we "must" move on to "new and better" technology.

> The boundary between C and C++ is rather thin, ...

Only if you ignore a real object oriented design and the main benefits and
powers of C++.  That's not my interest and while I can't speak for the
other developers, I doubt it's theirs either.  So anything short of a
complete redesign and reimplmentation of CircleMUD in C++ is not a
consideration.  Otherwise we're raising the requirements for using and
programming with CircleMUD, while not gaining any significant benefit.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/11/01 PDT