i agree with dak. javascript can get really ugly and hard to read.
i really like the idea of a mud assembler/compiler. granted it
it would be alot of work, but i think it would be worth it. you
would have much greater flexibility with it. and since javascript
is exactly that, an interpreted script, you are limited to the foresight
of the developers of it.(no bash on the javascript developers here, i'm
sure they did a great job).
with a mud assembler/compiler, it would be like an actual programming
language. i really really like this idea.
but is it better to build it in C? or C++? ideally, we would want it
to work with the current version of C but also be integratable(sp? is
this
even a word)into a newer version and that newer version may be C++.
maybe we can talk to Melvin about the one he was going to use for MUD++.
hell, he may even be interested in helping out. assuming we can get
ahold
of him. i never could.
Daniel Koepke wrote:
>
> Chris Jacobson wrote:
>
> > Nay folks, JavaScript.
> >
> > JavaScript is much easier to use and could be added in much easier since
> > JSRef, the JavaScript Engine, is available under the NPL, and is also
> > embeddable.
>
> I think I'd rather have a hot coffee enema. JavaScript code is just
> plain ugly, bordering on unreadable in many circumstances. I don't
> think weak typing is a good concept to introduce to non-programmers,
> either. If your builders are the right-brained, creative types, the
> constraints will do them well. Creative, nonlinear typing quickly
> sires inefficient code.
--
reply to bill<@>longboys.net(remove the<>)
...spam avoidance policy in effect.
check out www.giftsgalore.com, lots 'o neat stuff there.
GO JOHNNY!!! GO BILL!!!
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 : 12/15/00 PST