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.
-dak
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 : 04/11/01 PDT