Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: MUD languages

[clawrenc#cup,hp.com]

In <9704261730.7yk1#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA>, on 04/26/97 
   at 05:39 PM, cg#ami-cg,graysage.edmonton.ab.ca (Chris Gray) said:

>It seems that everyone with big ambitions (most of us?) wants to have
>a programming language within the MUD. Makes sense to me. Lots of
>discussions in the newsgroups have talked about using some standard
>pre-existing language (Perl, Tcl, etc.), but I don't know of anyone
>who has actually done that. 

The only one I know of that did was PerlMUD, for pretty obvious
reasons.

>Anyone know of a MUD that does? Is there
>some real reason why not, or is it just a case of NIH (Not Invented
>Here) syndrome?

The real problem I see is that the language ends up so closely bound
to your server design that you might as well go with your own
creation.  It gets to be a fight to leave the language "pure" and not
do the Microsoft deal and add your own little tweaks to it.

This all to the side:  I'd love to see it done, and done well.  I
don't know if I will, mostly because all the standardised languages
I've seen are far more complex for the end users than I want mine to
be.

Conversely, I have a feeling that that complexity is unavoidable in
practice (users end up doing nasty things with your code and relying
on side-effects that you hoped they'd not notice), and so attempting
to smooth the learning curve with a simpler language is a lot cause.  

Its here where I start to think that what I really need are two
languages:  an internal programming language that the world is written
in, which is also accessable to users, and an ultra-simplistic
language, much on the order of DOS batch files for users to do dumb
little things with.

-- 
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw#null,net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder#ibm,net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc#cup,hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...