13 Apr, 2010, 3squire wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
It's an interesting thought. I have given serious consideration to coding in other languages several times and continue to come to the conclusion that PHP is just an awesome language for MUD-coding. You can align it almost perfectly with anything written with C++ if you want to, while simultaneously doing many many things more easily. Plus, it's cross-platform, well documented, and you can script in the same language you code in.

Maybe I'm missing something…
13 Apr, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Because PHP can be an unmaintainable scary code nightmare. It looks and feels like a quasimodo version of perl, and isn't really all that friendly to use.

If you're comfortable using it, fine, go ahead, no one will hate you for it. Just don't ask me to use it*.


*I'm sure someone else will tho.
13 Apr, 2010, ProjectMoon wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
PHP codebase topic here: http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2537
13 Apr, 2010, 3squire wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
ProjectMoon said:
PHP codebase topic here: http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2537


I would note that that's not, in fact, an article at all about coding a mud in PHP.
13 Apr, 2010, Runter wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
In my limited experience with PHP I found it to be extremely ugly to read and use. When we compare PHP to other dynamic langauges we find more elegance without losing any of the features you mentioned. This in particular is perhaps what you're missing.

On the other hand, I agree that PHP is *a fantastic* choice if you're limiting your choices between C and PHP.
13 Apr, 2010, ProjectMoon wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
3squire said:
ProjectMoon said:
PHP codebase topic here: http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2537


I would note that that's not, in fact, an article at all about coding a mud in PHP.


You asked "Why aren't there PHP Codebases?" So, I gave you a link to a PHP codebase.
13 Apr, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
ProjectMoon said:
3squire said:
ProjectMoon said:
PHP codebase topic here: http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2537


I would note that that's not, in fact, an article at all about coding a mud in PHP.


You asked "Why aren't there PHP Codebases?" So, I gave you a link to a PHP codebase.

I don't get it either, why isn't ProjectMoon's link about a PHP MUD codebase?

And I agree with what Runter said, so +1 there…
13 Apr, 2010, shasarak wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
On the other hand, I agree that PHP is *a fantastic* choice if you're limiting your choices between C and PHP.

With the possible exception of Assembler, is there any language for which that is not the case? :tongue:
13 Apr, 2010, Runter wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
shasarak said:
Runter said:
On the other hand, I agree that PHP is *a fantastic* choice if you're limiting your choices between C and PHP.

With the possible exception of Assembler, is there any language for which that is not the case? :tongue:


Lua.

Spoiler
I keed. Don't beat me, David.
13 Apr, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
shasarak said:
Runter said:
On the other hand, I agree that PHP is *a fantastic* choice if you're limiting your choices between C and PHP.

With the possible exception of Assembler, is there any language for which that is not the case? :tongue:


Lua.

Spoiler
I keed. Don't beat me, David.

ZOMG wtfbbq burn in hell and die!

Spoiler
'sok, I wuv wu too Wunter.
13 Apr, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
In my limited experience with PHP I found it to be extremely ugly to read and use. When we compare PHP to other dynamic langauges we find more elegance without losing any of the features you mentioned. This in particular is perhaps what you're missing.


But most other dynamic languages are not native in a web environment, so that's one plus in PHP's favor. However if I was concerned about that I'd choose JavaScript.
13 Apr, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
But most other dynamic languages are not native in a web environment, so that's one plus in PHP's favor. However if I was concerned about that I'd choose JavaScript.

I'm not sure I follow. PHP and JavaScript play rather different roles in the web environment. For starters, they live and run on the opposite ends of a browser connection.
13 Apr, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
What I find ironic is if you're asking "why not PHP", you might also ask "Why C???".
The Diku team for example could have used a number of languages, and they chose C.
And from the looks of things, they didn't write the best C either. I think that if you are
coming to the conclusion that PHP makes the most sense to you, then I say go for it!

I'm sure you could argue that PHP isn't ideal, but C sure as heck isn't and most muds out
there are written in C.
13 Apr, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, back then there wasn't as much optionality when it came to choosing a language, so the question "why C?" actually has a more reasonable answer than it might today.
13 Apr, 2010, Davion wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
I'm sure you could argue that PHP isn't ideal, but C sure as heck isn't and most muds out
there are written in C.


Actually, if you're coming from a C/C++ background, switching to PHP allows you to still write code effectively, and learn the language at the same time. Granted your initial code will probably be akin to straight C with some PHP goodies, but at least you can get your feet wet (that is, of course, if that's how you learn best).

I think any scripted language is better for making a MUD simply because of the string manipulation and container libraries built into the code. However, I don't think I'd pick PHP. It's probably one of the slower scripting languages out there.
13 Apr, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Well, back then there wasn't as much optionality when it came to choosing a language, so the question "why C?" actually has a more reasonable answer than it might today.


Ah, I remember learnin C, and then C++.. I can still smell the pages of the books I read. Every day, day in day out, head in a C/C++ book.

I miss those days.

C /C++ are both incredibly cool. For what they did when they were designed, they were the PHP of their time (ie, every one used them and they were seen as clunky but very useful compared to fortran or COBOL ;)

I guess I'd love to go back to C / C++ one day, but I wouldn't make a living these days on it - mostly I'd be too crap at it…
13 Apr, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Well, back then there wasn't as much optionality when it came to choosing a language, so the question "why C?" actually has a more reasonable answer than it might today.

I wonder why they didn't choose C++? Wasn't it available in 1991?
13 Apr, 2010, Runter wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
David Haley said:
Well, back then there wasn't as much optionality when it came to choosing a language, so the question "why C?" actually has a more reasonable answer than it might today.

I wonder why they didn't choose C++? Wasn't it available in 1991?


It took too many resources! ;)

Aren't there some people still running about complaining about the efficiency loss from C to C++ as it relates to muds?
13 Apr, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Aren't there some people still running about complaining about the efficiency loss from C to C++ as it relates to muds?

I was once hired to do some work on a MUD, and part of that time was spent transitioning to C++ to get nicer data structures. Although the features were liked, they said using C++ was unacceptable because it was too inefficient compared to C, and that was pretty much the end of that. :smile:

JohnnyStarr said:
I wonder why they didn't choose C++? Wasn't it available in 1991?

Don't forget that these were college students, and perhaps not even aware of it (or didn't know it).

Also, note that C++ as we know it today actually wasn't available in 1991. You can peruse the history of C++ and the STL on Wikipedia if you like, but here is a very interesting quote about the STL's history:

Quote
This work <the STL> undoubtedly would have continued for some time being just a research project or at best would have resulted in an HP proprietary library if Andrew Koenig of Bell Labs had not become aware of the work and asked Stepanov to present the main ideas at a November 1993 meeting of the ANSI/ISO committee for C++ standardization.


So it wasn't even presented for standardization until 1993. (cppstandards lulz)

It goes on to say:

Quote
The prospects for early widespread dissemination of STL were considerably improved with Hewlett-Packard's decision to make its implementation freely available on the Internet in August 1994.


So no, it's quite possible that C++ as we know it today wasn't widely available as an option, especially to college students.
13 Apr, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Be thankful they didn't write it in Pascal, or FORTRAN… both of which were still quite popular in academic circles back in 1990.
0.0/52