Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction

David A. Cornelson wrote:
> "Marco van de Voort" <marcov@toad.stack.nl> wrote in message
>> David A. Cornelson wrote:
>> > I am putting together a project (already on SourceForge) to build a
>> > new platform for Interactive Fiction gaming targeting the .NET
>> > Framework and CLR. There are several parts to this project, one in
>> > particular is the creation of a new syntax/language that compiles to
>> > the CLR.
>>
>> Why is .NET particularly suitable for this? Or is your IF going to be
>> static? (iow not enhanced by the players).
>>
>> > return LivingRoom;
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > ....they would want to write something like this (just an example):
>> >
>> > class Kitchen : IF Room {
>> > description: "This is the kitchen.";
>> > go_east: LivingRoom;
>> > }
>>
>> Check out LPC, the MUD interpreter system. (throwing "LPC" and "MUD" in
>> google together will provide enough links). There are probably more
>> such systems in the MUD scene.
>
> I have thoroughly looked at the mud world and found it lacking in
> flexibility and extensibility.


Most are extensible via code in the central C code.


> One of my design goals is to maintain the ease of development that the
> current Interactive Fiction languages provide.


I'm just curious why that has anything to do with a .NET or JVM backend, or
why the MUD systems don't suffice. It seems you have already made up your
mind to target the fashionable platforms.


>>From there, I want to open the genre to extensions like database, socket
> programming, xml, and other types of features that platforms like Java and
> ..NET have.


What do they have? Relative unportability (compared to the plain C mud
systems)


> I wouldn't so much mind Java except that I want to create my own language
> syntax and although I could target the JVM, the .NET CLR and Framework seem
> so much more refined to me.


Why? Do you need to sell it, and have to acronym-overload some manager with
fashionable systems?

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.