[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
14191: Re: [MUD-Dev] Fw: 16K mud server competition !
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Miroslav Silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: 04 Apr 2000 13:52:45 +0200
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
Cynbe ru Taren <cynbe@muq.org> writes:
> Optimal solution is probably a language like J, Haskell or teco
> that is more about conciseness than efficiency. :)
*grin* I *hope* you meant to say 'readability' rather than efficiency.
> 16K of J will take you a long way. For example, check out:
>
> http://www.ai.mit.edu/extra/icfp-contest/isi.html
>
> This is the 229 lines and 7078 characters (including comments and
> development support "dead" code) J program that won honorable
> mention in the ICFP '98 Functional Programming Contest for beating
> out many compiled C programs many times longer, despite being an
> interpreted language.
I heard of J before and your post finally got me to read the docs. J
is somewhat more powerful than Perl, and somewhat less readable than
Intercal. Rather interesting language, in other words. ;)
Seriously, I haven't read the contest rules yet, but I assume they
limit the language selection. Otherwise, you can just write a MUD in
Java or Common LISP (The Language With Everything On, or Did You
Really Think That -Emacs- Was Big? or MMap Twenty Megabytes On
Startup), and use all the available libraries for these languages - as
a result, you'd get really small code indeed, and it'd want to link to
megabytes of runtime environment.
Also note that they rank the entries by maintainability, which rather
limits the use of C obfuscators (or J, for that matter).
--
How to eff the ineffable?
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev