Programming languages

> > > > Because they used it to write the base language - why design a new
> > > language
> > > > when you can use the syntax of the one you already know.
> > >
> > > That's one possible reason. In my personal opinion, it would point to
a
> > > designer being unwilling, or unable, to think outside the box, which
> > > certainly is a bad thing for MUD designers.
> > >
> >
> > Not necessarily - the basic syntax makes little difference - and why
waste
> > effort redesigning something, if your main interest is the results you
can
> > achieve with the resulting language - I would guess most MUD language
> > designers are more interested in the design of the game they will
> implement
> > afterwards, then in the mechanics of the language they are developing to
> get
> > them there.
>
> Well, the answer to that is of course that the language limits the results
> you can get for the effort expended. It is VERY DIFFICULT to do
> object-oriented things in a non-object-oriented language. Depending on
what
> the language provides, adding a feature and handler may be trivial, or it
> may be a major pain in the posterior.
>
> This is what made LambdaMOO an important development: it was the first MUD
> that was explicitly object-oriented and provided an object-oriented
> programming paradigm to the MUD coders.
>
> There have been some VERY impressive things done in LISP, many of which
> cannot be done in C without the expenditure of many times as much effort,
> for example. Similarly, the track record of FORTH for doing impossible
> things on impossible schedules is well-known.
>
>

Do you really have a question??? You don't seem to like the answers you
get.

It looks more like you have an answer you want to preach about and looking
for an audience who wants to listen.

When you ask a question, you get answered by ppl who are trying to be
helpful.

Real programmers do not reinvent the wheel and if you have trouble doing
some things in a language, go get more talent.

"Rick" <writer@nayzak.com> wrote in
newsFbXa.130621$Io.11117558@newsread2.prod.itd.e arthlink.net:

>
> Real programmers do not reinvent the wheel and if you have trouble
> doing some things in a language, go get more talent.
>
>

Alternatively, for those using Inform, go to the Archive and download
talent.h.


--
Eric
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite/

================================================== =========================
=================
"Who does not see that I have taken a road, in which, incessantly and
without labor, I shall proceed so long as there shall be ink and paper in
the world? I can give no account of my life by my actions; fortune has
placed them too low; I must do it by my fancies." Michel de Montaigne
================================================== =========================
=================

"Rick" <writer@nayzak.com> wrote in message
newsFbXa.130621$Io.11117558@newsread2.prod.itd.e arthlink.net...
> > > > > Because they used it to write the base language - why design a new
> > > > language
> > > > > when you can use the syntax of the one you already know.
> > > >
> > > > That's one possible reason. In my personal opinion, it would point
to
> a
> > > > designer being unwilling, or unable, to think outside the box, which
> > > > certainly is a bad thing for MUD designers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not necessarily - the basic syntax makes little difference - and why
> waste
> > > effort redesigning something, if your main interest is the results you
> can
> > > achieve with the resulting language - I would guess most MUD language
> > > designers are more interested in the design of the game they will
> > implement
> > > afterwards, then in the mechanics of the language they are developing
to
> > get
> > > them there.
> >
> > Well, the answer to that is of course that the language limits the
results
> > you can get for the effort expended. It is VERY DIFFICULT to do
> > object-oriented things in a non-object-oriented language. Depending on
> what
> > the language provides, adding a feature and handler may be trivial, or
it
> > may be a major pain in the posterior.
> >
> > This is what made LambdaMOO an important development: it was the first
MUD
> > that was explicitly object-oriented and provided an object-oriented
> > programming paradigm to the MUD coders.
> >
> > There have been some VERY impressive things done in LISP, many of which
> > cannot be done in C without the expenditure of many times as much
effort,
> > for example. Similarly, the track record of FORTH for doing impossible
> > things on impossible schedules is well-known.
> >
> >
>
> Do you really have a question??? You don't seem to like the answers you
> get.
>
> It looks more like you have an answer you want to preach about and looking
> for an audience who wants to listen.
>
> When you ask a question, you get answered by ppl who are trying to be
> helpful.
>
> Real programmers do not reinvent the wheel and if you have trouble doing
> some things in a language, go get more talent.

Real programmers do not reinvent the wheel. However, they also do not
invent airplanes: they typically concentrate on better use of known wheels.
This works as long as the wheel is reasonably close to the optimum solution.
If what you need is a helicopter, however, real programmers aren't going to
be much good. In actual fact, if what you need is a helicopter, my
experience strongly suggests that your real programmers are going to be an
active hindrance, because they won't be able to find the wheels and they
probably won't be able to find the driveshaft. (Or maybe they'll turn the
helo on its side, add outriggers with wheels, and attach shoes to the tips
of the main rotor, and then complain because it still can't climb across the
chasm that the original helicopter was intended to fly over.)

What I was looking for was some insight into WHY everything I saw looked
like a low-rent clone of "C" or BASIC. I've spent a good portion of my life
around computers, working in quite a variety of languages and application
areas, and I wondered why this area seemed so shallow.

Now I know my answer.

In article <Xns93CC9B23E18A9emayer00@199.224.117.11>, emayer00@epix.net
says...
> "Rick" <writer@nayzak.com> wrote in
> newsFbXa.130621$Io.11117558@newsread2.prod.itd.e arthlink.net:
>
> >
> > Real programmers do not reinvent the wheel and if you have trouble
> > doing some things in a language, go get more talent.
> >
> >
>
> Alternatively, for those using Inform, go to the Archive and download
> talent.h.

Which consists of a macro, which for most developers is sadly
content-free.