[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
20629: Re: [MUD-Dev] TECH: programming languages (was: Re: TECH: STL / Heaps, etc.)
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:34:10 -0700
References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] <-newest
Organization: Kanga.Nu
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 03:45:38PM +0200, Ola Fosheim Gr?stad wrote:
> Bruce Mitchener wrote:
>> Ola Fosheim Gr?stad wrote:
>>> Bruce Mitchener wrote:
>>>> * Has anyone used Prolog or a logic language in their mud?
Depends on how broad you want to use those terms. Oz, the language
I'm using for my mud, is enough of a logic language that there is a
trivial translation of any Prolog program into it. Or so I've been
told.
>>> Not really sure how a different imperative implementation
>>> language is going to get you to a new type of server?
>> Languages impose constraints upon the space of what is easily
>> achievable and their assumptions shape the design of a system.
>> While many of the differences will be within the implementation,
>> that doesn't render them irrelevant.
> Hmm... I think most imperative languages are rather Algol like,
> but I guess you are right in the sense that a lot of languages
> produce a lot of disturbing source-code bloat when you try to use
> certain approaches. Efficiency considerations and the lack of
> design in C++ which leads to horrible function objects is one
> example... (For some reason it seems to be modern to promote
> verbosity as if that improved legibility; STL, Java.)
> If set-oriented languages had been efficient... :-) Dream on.
SQL?
-Robin
--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev