[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
28524: RE: [MUD-Dev] Programming Languages.
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Roy Trubshaw <rtrubshaw@silacom.com>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:47:01 +0100
Organization: Kanga.Nu
On 03 July 2003 04:47 J C Lawrence wrote:
> In the commercial world the answer is largely a resounding, "Yes!"
> There are exceptions, but they tend to be either small, or to be
> well constrained within a larger C++ structure.
We used VAX Pascal for Mud2. You wouldn't believe the variant record
that Richard came up with to emulate a void * 8-) ! - (that's
exclamation point _not_ bang)
> In the hobbyist world its a bit of a mash. Historically C
> dominated with a fairly wide range of soft-code systems (in terms
> of language design). More recent efforts have started to use
> other base languages: Perl, Python, Erlang, TOM, Java, C++, OCaML,
> etc. My impression (utterly unsupported by statistics) is that
> there is not a clear language leader for from-scratch hobbyist
> systems (legacy derivatives have an obvious tendency to derive
> from their ancestor's choices).
Obviously there's no question but BCPL is the _only_ choice!! 8-)
[Snipped]
Toodle pip,
Roy Trubshaw
--
"You haven't lived 'til you've died in MUD." Some marketing guy from
BT New Information Services (whose name I have forgotten): MUD
Marketing Slogan 1985
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev