Fun with Erlang (was Re: Stand Alone Erlang for Windows. yet again)
Fri Mar 16 12:25:03 CET 2001
> Hmmmmmm. Wouldn't it be easier to have "controlled objects" simply be
> associated with a Pid from which they accept messages/method calls,
> and its only the nature of the Pid that determines whether its player
> or AI-controlled? A Player Pid would involve a poll for outside input
> before it sent messages to the Thing, whereas an AI would be just
> sending them based on perceptions (as relayed back by the Thing) and
> coded responses.
I have read your whole message and I must admit that the "picture" you
are proposing is very exciting.
We will place it on the Erlang-fr page and translate it in French, if
you do not mind.
> I've been reading Theirry's articles as referenced earlier about
> implimenting Worldforge in Erlang. I'll be honest, I dislike the
> Worldforge project itself because I think its too ambitious and
> unrealistic, but Thierry has broken down the necessary structures
> underlying /any/ kind of IP-driven client/server interface very well.
> These bits of code could very well form the core of a good MU* server
> (and likely give far better performance than we have seen in the past
> for MU* servers; soft-realtime is good).
I agree with you on Worldforge ambition, that is why I was first
interested in a MUD like approach, which is much more established.
But Thierry Mallard convinced me to have a look at Worldforge. We then
come to think that an Erlang approach could make this project feasible.
We are both very pragmatic and are interested in first having some code
working and then improving it.
Your reflexion on the game design by process is very insteresting.
Maybe we could start working together on a real working and playable
More information about the erlang-questions