> Since I'm coding my mud up in linux, I don't think the dll option would > be my best bet. Esp since I don't know how to create dll's for linux. > ;p
It's relatively easy to compile dynamic libraries in Linux, then dlopen it and you can look up the addresses of the functions in it. And obviously you would only have to figure out how to do it once, then save that in your makefile. If you want to write the code in a secondary language and have the mud load it, there are a lot to choose from. Perl, Python, TCL and Java all have interpreters that can be loaded within another program for module-like expansion. There's also "Small", which is really designed exactly for this type of thing, though I can't speak to it because I've never tried it. http://www.compuphase.com/small.htm At any rate, it will be much easier to load a real language with a well developed API than try and write a new language from scratch. --Palrich.
