Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:47184 rec.games.frp:19214 rec.games.misc:8815 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!jrferro From: jrferro@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Jon R Ferro) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,rec.games.frp,rec.games.misc Subject: Re: Adventure Definition Language Message-ID: <7474@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> Date: 26 Mar 90 22:42:32 GMT References: <9SRGAKL@drivax.UUCP> Reply-To: jrferro@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jon R Ferro) Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Lines: 36 In article <9SRGAKL@drivax.UUCP> g1@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes: >I'm looking for the sources and/or DOS executable forms of one of two >text adventure creating languages I've seen over the years but can no >longer find. > >They are: Dungeon Definition Language and Adventure Definition >Language. Both (I'm told) provide the means to write text adventures >without having to do the tedious "how does one get something, etc." >bits. The C sources to both ADL and another adventure-authoring system, ADVSYS, were posted to comp.sources.games several years ago. They are available in volume 2 of the comp.sources.games archive on ftp.uu.net (via anonymous ftp). According to the documentation supplied with the sources, ADL will compile on BSD Unix, HPUX, MS-DOS, and AmigaDos by making changes to one header file. I had no difficulty building the system on BSD with GCC. I have no idea if ADVSYS will compile on DOS, but I had no problem with it on BSD. Both systems come complete with manuals and with "standard libraries" of routines designed to overcome the "having to do the tedious bits" problems. I have not worked with either system long enough to determine whether one is technically superior to the other, so I will have to assume that it is a matter of personal preference. Given that, my personal preference leans toward ADL. Hope this helps! -- Jon Ferro jrferro@ai.mit.edu MIT Transportation Modelling Research Center, Documentation Committee char*s="char*s=%c%s%c;main(){printf(s,34,s,34);}";main(){printf(s,34,s,34);}