Re: [MUD-Dev] Properties of computer languages

[David95037#aol,com]

In a message dated 6/17/99 5:00:22 PM, caliban#darklock,com writes:

>I'm doing something reasonably insane. (Shhh. Don't tell anyone.) The
>language I am designing has several design criteria:
>
>	It must be small.
>	It must be crippled. 
>	It must be impractical. 
>	It must be inefficient.
>	However, it must still work. 

I take back my previous help.

If you want inefficient, definitely do not tokenize the macros, re-parse
the text each time.  Maybe keep them in a giant string.  When a loop is
being executed, to find that start of the loop, search the string from the
beginning.

Mix cryptic commands and long commands (use "Plus" to add to things
together but use "sub" to subtract them), and be case sensitive.

Make them put blocks of code in submacros (and then do idiotic searches
to find those macros at runtime).  Have a nesting depth cutoff that is
really shallow.

Add some sort of string expander that will usually corrupt the macro
instead of making it do tricky things.  It could even work over the
whole macro space, attacking not just the macro it is pointed at, but
all macros that are being used (and without blocks, more will be used).


>You know... a military language. It gets the job done, but it's neither
>pleasant nor efficient. Just effective.

If this is a slight of Ada, i take back this advice too!

--djk



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev