A great many things from what I've seen. My Cygwin installation doesn't have Python, so I've only briefly looked over NakedMUD's source code, and never actually gotten it running. But having used SocketMUD extensively before, I can safely tell you NakedMUD has at least 10 times as much code.
And to Celest, I'd actually recommend NakedMUD between the two. SocketMUD is a lot more bare, and NakedMUD really doesn't seem to have anything that'll clash with your vision of what you want your MUD to become, no matter what that vision is.
I still prefer to rip ROM to shreds and rebuild it into what I want, but then, I have a high pain tolerance.
Fascinating, guess I'll have to take a look at nakedmud at some point and see what all it's actually got in it, though at this point I can't really see myself ever changing to another codebase without a lot of reservations, I've put so much into my smaug already.. *sigh*
If you're already working with SMAUG, stick with SMAUG. Same reason I still use ROM. Even if I were to find a codebase that's a hundred times more efficient and flexible (which I know there already are), I'd keep using ROM, because I've put so much into familiarizing myself with the ROM source code and I already have so much done on my ROM MUD. If I ever do _another_ MUD though, it'll probably be based on SocketMUD or NakedMUD.
Midboss: While, on the whole, I can certainly agree with where you're coming from on that, if I ever get good enough to start over with something like socketmud, I'd end up using the same principles I'd already spent years learning to make it myself so I wouldn't have the standard license restrictions anymore. Of course, by then hopefully I'd also be going in some directions that I might not be able to with Smaug as a baseline anyway… and I might well find that even SocketMUD really wouldn't support all my dreams either. ;)
Celeste: Without looking at a copy I couldn't say for certain, but I was rather under the impression that the whole point of switching to something as stripped down as SocketMUD or even NakedMUD was that you've got the very foundation but still have a ton of code work to do to make it a playable mud in exchange for basically setting your own license rather than being restricted to the typical licenses you find in more complete codebases.
Midboss: While, on the whole, I can certainly agree with where you're coming from on that, if I ever get good enough to start over with something like socketmud, I'd end up using the same principles I'd already spent years learning to make it myself so I wouldn't have the standard license restrictions anymore.
Yeah, been working on a scratch codebase myself… been a huge amount of work. Want to release under the MIT license. Currently it's playable at a very basic level, will take alot of work before it's ready to open.
I'm interested in starting a mud from a barebones codebase, and the two bases that show up are nakedmud and socketmud. What are the differences/advantages/disadvantages between the two of them.
NakedMUD is definitely not bare bones :). It's got tons of stuff built it. Mostly, the fact that it supports python scripting. Which is awesome! But as far as I know, it has basic mobs, rooms and objects built into the codebase and are fully scriptable via python. If you want python scripting, it's definitely the way to go as the Python C API is a bitch to learn/use. Might be a good place to learn though. Honastly though, I wouldn't go out trying to start a custom codebase without extensive knowledge of the language you choose. It'd just be awkward and you'd wind up re-writing 90% of it as you get better.
I've never checked out NakedMud. SocketMud isn't all that though. You could take almost any base out there and strip it down to nothing but sockets and be better off and if you strip it enough you will have the basics of SocketMud. SocketMud even has quite a few issues (at least the last time I messed with it which I have to admit has been over a year now). Telent (when it sends one character at a time) doesn't work very well with it since it doesn't keep it in an inbuf until it finds a newline. You could very easily write your on from the ground up and be better off then going with such a basic code. That's just my personaly oppinion on it though.
all i was saying is the point behind bare-bones muds, are so that you basicaly have taken care of how to open a socket, and listen to the port.
Anything more then that, perhaps afew little things like a copyover or whatever, is okay, but really, there isn't much more needed, when you are going bare-bones, you want to have the ability to choose the path which your mud takes, so having a colour system, help, movement, world/area /battle system, kinda ruin the whole point of having a bareboned mud.
Which is why, i think both nakedmud and socketmud are foolsgold, why bother, your still getting too much.
If you want a real bare-bones mud, it would be, as you said remcon, be the best idea to build ground up, that way, you are the master of your domain. And truly one of the better muds out there.
So, to be one of the truly better muds out there you really have to build it from scratch, even the sockets subsystem and all.. so, if you're coding skills aren't really up to all that, you can't possibly have a good mud? Hmm.. I'm thinking that I and my staff should be taking some mild offense at that set of sentiments. :sad:
28 Jun, 2006, Hades_Kane wrote in the 17th comment:
<i>If you want a real bare-bones mud, it would be, as you said remcon, be the best idea to build ground up, that way, you are the master of your domain. And truly one of the better muds out there.</i>
<i>So, to be one of the truly better muds out there you really have to build it from scratch, even the sockets subsystem and all.. </i>
He didn't say building from the ground up is a requirement to being one of the better MUDs out there. He said, in a nut shell "if you build from the ground up, you will be one of the truly better MUDs out there." That's simply saying that if you not only have the skill, but put forth the effort to build from scratch, then you are a lot more likely to be a high quality MUD.
Had he said "If you want truly one of the better muds out there, it would be, as you said remcon, be the best idea to build ground up, that way, you are the master of your domain. " that would be a different story.
I think you took it way, way off it's intended mark.
Maybe you're right, I may have misread it.. Though I do try to be pretty thick-skinned in general anyway to be safe, especially of late. In my own case, I am working on gaining the skill and experience to one day attempt to write my own from scratch, but I'm certainly the first to admit that I'm not there yet, but I still think my mud's pretty good and getting better all the time, and I'd really like to think that it's not just from my own admittedly biased perspective.
Very true KaViR, however, when you build your game ground up, you know it personaly, there isn't a line of code that you will look at and go 'how does that work' or 'who the hell wrote that piece of crap' which to me, as a coder, gives me great pleasure to not have to worry about that.
Ontop of that, i've built my own mud, ground up, C++, as i am sure you have done yourself, and i have found that i may of re-invented the wheel, but atleast its mine, 100%, all credit to me, and its a good-feeling as a coder to have that one thing that you can call completely yours. Especialy when your a learning coder, and its still hard on you. Ofcourse, nowa-days, its not hard, but when i did, it was.
So you can see what i'm getting at, its more then just writing the code, and it doesn't have to be better, its just better for the coder, because of the feeling of accomplishment, the knowing that they did it themselves, ontop of that, as i said, you atleast know that you are 100% at fault if something goes wrong, there is no worry that someone else messed up the code, or that there was an existing flaw in the system based from the last coder.
Its just a personal opinion, but i feel that it is right.