[MUD-Dev] Re: PDMud thread summary

Jon Leonard jleonard at divcom.slimy.com
Fri Oct 23 16:13:11 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998


On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 at 09:27:29PM -0600, Chris Gray wrote:
> [Joachim Pileborg (The Arrow):]
> 
>  >However, among all the buzz-words and efficiency talk, there is one word I
>  >miss:  simplicity.  Personally I think this project first of all should be
>  >simple, and efficiency and modularization should come after that.  At leas
>  >it should be so if we want this, I don't know waht to call it, "creation" ;)
>  >to spread outside the little circle this list really is.
> 
> Wise words. A lot of the talk flying around certainly has the smell of
> complexity attached to it. That is often an unfortunate consequence of
> "design by comittee". I too would advise trying very hard to keep things
> simple at the early stages - complexity will creep in all too quickly,
> despite any attempts to stamp it out.

I think modularization is up there with simplicity.  For utter simplicity,
try my example server from http://www.slimy.com/~jleonard/src/ipc.html.
It's not useful for anything but stealing socket code, since the (hardcoded)
only two commands are "say" and "quit".

This weekend I'm going to try to port it to a module-based design, to
see how simple a working module protocol I can make.  If DevMUD uses a
different protocol, that's fine -- I'll understand better for having tried.

My secondary reason for wanting modules is simplicity, in that it allows
someone to pick out a few small modules and have a working MUD.  Complexity
will happen with some of the modules, but I do want some code suitable for
starting to learn about MUD coding.

(The primary reason is that otherwise we'd never agree on what to build.)

Jon Leonard




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list