"Woah! My car's engine won't start! It has no paint of any kind, and the gas tank is almost empty!"
"Ok, did you turn the key? It doesn't matter that your car will rust out from under you, or that it won't go more than a block or two without more gas. The important thing is to get the engine running, at all costs, ignoring anything else even if it's easily explained and fixed."

Sound like the correct course of action?

Incompatible analogies.

He had warnings. But the code still compiled. He asked why the MUD wouldn't boot and provided us with the warnings. We informed him that the warnings aren't going to prevent the mud from starting up. Never did we say not to fix them, or to leave them there. We were trying to help him get the MUD running. Being able to get it running, is slightly more important than having perfectly clean, warning free code. No one was hand waving it away. Especially not me, I don't even allow warnings, I turn them into errors. So don't lecture me on the subject of leaving them in place. I understand the seriousness of the issues those warnings represent. But the OP is trying to boot his mud. Not fix warnings that have no bearing on the MUD starting up.

After reading some of the OPs later posts, I get the distinct feeling that he doesn't really understand the difference between compiling the MUD and running it. It seems to me that from the things he's said, that typing 'make' should have the MUD running. However, this is not the case as most of us here already know. But in order to be of much help, we're going to need to know what codebase is in use here, so that we can provide more targetted information.

I guess you guys and I had very different methods of learning stuff when we were younger. I always welcomed learning things, even if they weren't critical to solving the exact problem I had, because it helped me see the bigger picture and do things on my own later. If it's better to only dole out exact answers to exact questions, and then wait for the next question to come up, I shall refrain from adding extra fluff details in future.

If the OP is still following this, please take Exodus' advice and let us know what happens from there. At least if we know where it crashes, we can point you towards a solution.

Ok guys, well I gave up on that code. Figured out what the problem was and it had nothing at all to do with those warnings. Was an issue that it didnt show on compile, and the coders I talked to told me that I can sit there for a year trying to fix that problem. So now Ive just went back to my old smaug code which is rather clean, some issues, but I can boot the mud and its stable.

I find it hard to believe that there's an issue that won't show on compile that prevents a mud from booting.

More like you text message a mechanic asking why your car won't start and you provide them with the information that your car is rusty and it's low on gas. It's no surprise that a mechanic may say those aren't going to stop your engine from starting, or that they'd be uninterested in that information given the situation. They may also tell you they need useful information (or that someone might need to actually look under the hood.)

Quix, perhaps another thing that people are reacting to is the rather patronizing tone of your posts about this. :smile:


I'm not really sure why you've got a forum full of coders here whom you're asking for help, and then you don't give us what we ask for to help you, and then you go off and talk to other coders who are giving you what appears to be fairly sketchy advice.


We value your contributions as always.

I'm glad.

FWIW, I don't think my post is any less useful to the OP than 3/4 of the replies bickering over the best way to help a guy. His question got answered, your points got made, and then you all continued to circle-jerk for a while afterwards. If you don't like the fact that I express my opinion on the matter (which, IMHO (and be being entitled to said "O") is exactly what the past few posts here are, silly, argumentative opinions) in the form of "clever" pictures instead of paragraphs, use that fancy plugin you downloaded to block our social links to block imgur.com too, and you'll never know I was here.

Good day, gents.

Actually it didn't, because he never really gave the information needed to answer it (hence the several posts asking for the info) but that's ok. I wasn't really expecting you to actually follow this stuff, it's far more amusing to post pictures to win the intarwebs. :wink:

For as much as you wink at me, I'd think amusing aren't the only kind of pictures you'd want from me :wink:

But yes, unfortunately for you, I have just enough interest in MudBytes to come peruse the site every day and give you grief, but that's about it.

Yaaay, +1 internets for me!1 Now where did I put those gold star stickers….

So basically, your only interest is in making useless comments and troll. At least you're up front about it I suppose.

That's not true. I offer a valid, meaningful opinion here and there. There's a diamond in the rough out there somewhere.

Huh? Almost all the the failed boots I have seen had no compile issues, in fact, most had to do
with bad input from the database. Even just talking about crashing (not just bootup), most of
those too would not issue compile warnings on make.

Now, what I did find hard to believe:

I find it hard to believe that any competent coder would be unable to fix something as repeatable
as a failed boot (or any crash for that matter).

But, I suppose it is a good thing in the long run as:

Ok, I might be a bit biased, but I really don't know why you would not just have used it from the start.