Talk:MUF (programming language)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe this page needs some work. I propose reworking it using C (programming language) as a template. BradGad (Talk) 21:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nevermind
I take that back. The page could use work, but MUF is a quirky language that exists in a quirky environment. We should let the page structure grow out of the particulars of MUF/MUCK programming. BradGad (Talk) 03:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
Although I doubt WikiPedia will soon have articles on "ear mufs" and "muf diving", I wonder if renaming the article as "MUF programming language" (or something similar) might be a good idea, in order to make its name parallel with that of other languages. BradGad (Talk) 05:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Now that I've said it, I'm intrigued by the concept of "muf diving". I may set out to become the word's first muf diver, and to set all kinds of records. BradGad (Talk) 05:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree - I came here expecting to see an article on Maximum usable frequency. A disamb page is in order, IMHO. I will leave it to others to decide if MUF should go to the disamb page, to here, or to Maximum Usable Frequency. N0YKG 16:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Mucker's Forth"?
The only reference to "Mucker's Forth" found by Google is this article. Does someone have a citation for this acronym, or was it conjecture on the part of an earlier editor? --Piet Delport 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reference is valid. MUF only exists (currently) in Fuzzball MUCK servers. Those that use and program on MUCK servers often call themselves Muckers, and in fact the permission-bit that needs to be set to allow someone to create MUF code is named MUCKER, reinforcing this trend.As MUF is based directly on Forth, the combination may not be referenced much in the web, but I've heard it used in conversation between coders for the language before.
It is quite easy to write entirely unreadable code in MUF. Is there any computer language out there where it's extremely hard to write unreadable code in?
The article states that it supports three primitive datatypes, but it supports a few more. Locks, ( very useful but underappreciated, I think. I use them to make get/put globals that actually obey conlocks ), arrays, and addresses (put on the stack with '<funcname>, and can be checked with address?. Used with the jmp prim to move program execution to another function, although the FurryMUCK helpfile states that it is depreciated and shouldn't be used. )
