| ▲ | em-bee 4 hours ago | |||||||
The only general-purpose languages that come close to the required execution model are Common Lisp and Smalltalk well, and pike, which itself is based on LPC so it has the required execution model by design. the point is that LPC and pike are the kind of sane language being asked for. | ||||||||
| ▲ | klibertp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
I might be wrong - I investigated Pike just once, a long time ago - but I think Pike dropped a lot of the "liveness" that LPC provided (ie. reloading objects from a (changed) source at runtime while keeping their identity and updating clones). It's still probably a good fit for a lot of more advanced MUDs, but it's even more niche than CL and Smalltalk, so again, not much of an advantage over a home-grown solution. Plus, I've been recently looking more closely at MOOs, and for that, even LPC would not be enough (too much of a separation between code and data) - LPC/LPMUDs weren't really built for persistence as much as MOOs were. Still, I can't disagree that, out of the box, LPC and Pike are probably a (much) better fit for a mudlib language compared to Lua, Python, or JavaScript :) | ||||||||
| ||||||||