30 Apr, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I've asked this before, but it is on my mind again so I am curious what people think these days…
SWR is very sloppily coded, almost to the extent that I'd rather redo it from scratch than add major features onto it. I know C, Java, PHP, VB, etc. Ideally I would want to make a MUD engine that ran on an SQL (MySQL or SQLite) back-end. Does anyone have any suggestions of bare-bones MUD engines that use an SQL backend, ideally in one of these languages or a derivative of one of them?
30 Apr, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I will add that CoffeeMUD fulfills all of these criteria, but seems a bit too built up for my needs, since I was hoping for something more bare-bones.
30 Apr, 2009, Kelvin wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I'd love to help you implement this on Evennia. We're theoretically in shape right now for game developers to start working on games, but none of the codebase devs are really interested in running games of their own. Feel free to stop by http://evennia.com and say hello (if Python is agreeable to you).
30 Apr, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
i sense this post will open a can of worms, but i think you might want to check
out TeensyMud because it will allow you to use any DB you want really. Although your background
is in C, JAVA, and VB, Teensy is written in Ruby which is really a wonderful language for mud coding.
If part of your beef with SWR is its 'sloppy' you might consider using a true Object Oriented language
like Ruby. Also you might consider hosting, unless youre using a windows machine, VB or anything
strictly Microsoft might not be a good idea. Ruby ports on linux and windows without having to change
ANY code (well most of the times). Plus, i would have to point out using a dynamic language like ruby
cuts down a ton on your development time, because lets face it, designing a codebase from scratch is
a TON of work.
30 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
staryavsky said:
If part of your beef with SWR is its 'sloppy' you might consider using a true Object Oriented language like Ruby.

It's worth noting that it's very easy to write very sloppy code in any language – the choice of language will not save one from what is essentially incompetence when it comes to designing large systems.
30 Apr, 2009, Kelvin wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Indeed. I find that it's usually about finding a framework/codebase that you can agree with philosophically instead of a language. I find Ruby's syntax is similar enough to many other dynamically typed languages. However my web framework of choice is Django because I like the way it does things better than Ruby on Rails, which only has so much to do with Python vs. Ruby vs. whatever else.
David Haley said:
staryavsky said:
If part of your beef with SWR is its 'sloppy' you might consider using a true Object Oriented language like Ruby.

It's worth noting that it's very easy to write very sloppy code in any language – the choice of language will not save one from what is essentially incompetence when it comes to designing large systems.
30 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Guess you've never heard of brainfuck.
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.——.——–.>+.>.
30 Apr, 2009, Kelvin wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
[self-inflicted] brainfuck :)
Scandum said:
Guess you've never heard of brainfuck.
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.——.——–.>+.>.
30 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Agreed, Kelvin: a good framework with a well-designed API is almost always a much more important factor than the languages in question. Of course, I assumed we were talking about sane languages in the first place, not utter nonsense. :wink:
30 Apr, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I didn't mean to imply that switching languages would make the code inherently less sloppy. But being able to do my own coding with my own standards should cut down on sloppiness, since SWR (especially LotJ) is a culmination of the work of many, many different people all with different ideas of what good code is. I may end up going with CoffeeMUD since it has many of the features I like, though if I do I will likely redo most of the front-end (I don't like the color schemes, etc.)
30 Apr, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Also, I would never code a MUD in VB, I hate it :P
I just wanted to mention that I knew it.
30 Apr, 2009, elanthis wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Even a great framework attempt can get hamstrung by a bad language, though. I work in PHP a lot for work and there are just so many things that I flat out _can't do_ (easily) that makes creating a pleasant framework hard. I've done the best I can for our internal projects, but I still end up having to give up on some features because PHP has little to no support for things like named parameters, lambda functions, or even method chaining. The resulting framework API is just harder to use than similar Python or Ruby APIs, and there's not a damn thing I can do about. (I've asked to switch languages several times… and been denied. Sad Sean.)
30 Apr, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I love PHP because of its flexibility, but it does have a lot of limitations too.
30 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
There are plenty of languages with as much (or more) flexibility as PHP without as much shoot-yourself-in-the-footedness.
30 Apr, 2009, Davion wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Rojan QDel said:
I love PHP because of its flexibility, but it does have a lot of limitations too.


Then you'd love a real language like python or ruby even more ;).
30 Apr, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Aye, I've played with python. Ruby, not so much.
01 May, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
You could come and help with groovy mud… it's mud engine is in java and it uses the java - based scripting language Groovy for everything else…

http://code.google.com/p/groovymud/

http://groovy.codehaus.org/

to be honest it would be good to have some more mud experience in the mix

feel free to drop in and help!
01 May, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm wary of Java because of my experiences with bad performance, though… I've always been a fan of NakedMUD, but would love to find a similar codebase in C++, mostly because of C's string issues. Anyone know of anything similar?
01 May, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Performance issues with Java are completely misplaced if you're also considering languages like Ruby, Python, etc.
Even without comparing to those languages, Java's performance is more than sufficient for anything you'd be doing in a MUD.
01 May, 2009, Rojan QDel wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not really considering Ruby since I don't know it at all. And I'd really only use Python for scripting support.

However, to be fair, we have performance issues with C, though I attribute that to bad planning and coding.
0.0/22