What a piece of code is capable of doing naturally includes the features of the program, no? A program cannot have features if the code is not capable of them… How are you defining "capability"?

Support options is an important thing to consider but I wouldn't really consider it part of the client intrinsically. But it could be a reason (even one of the most important reasons, sure) to choose one over another.

I'm thinking more along the lines of differences in features rather than just presence of them, David. Though certainly presence or lack of a given bell/whistle that someone's after could certainly be a deal breaker too. And, without a question I'd quickly change clients if the one I was using was unstable enough that it crashed randomly every connection… but as far as the feature differences go… by way of example, let's say (off-hand I have no idea whether or not it's true because I use neither) that kmuddy comes with an auto-mapper just like zmud does. Now, if they're both auto-mappers and they both work reasonably well, are they still the same? What if one actually knows how to handle rooms you've previously visited by another route better than the other one does (something that I recall zmud (most auto-mappers really) always having had trouble with), would that be a capability issue or a stability issue or simply a difference in how it handles that feature of that feature? How about something even more simple, what if one client presents your muds in a simple list while the other uses pretty (but potentially confusing) icons, is that a capability issue or a stability issue? Sometimes it's a matter of preferences rather than what the client can do. *shrug*

Well, again, yes, it's something the code is capable of doing better than the other one… how is that not a capability issue? This seems like a very good example of a more capable (i.e. competent) algorithm. Like I said I think we're using rather different understandings of "capability"…

Text vs. icons is a good example, but I don't see how it relates to the issue of code: if one piece of code is unambiguously more stable and more capable than another, that seems to fall right into the definition for "better". It's not a definitive argument (maybe you like one's interface more than the other's – that's what these icons are, an interface thing rather than a functional feature) but if you're looking for features that sounds like pretty much the end of the game.

EDIT: it is important to note perhaps that usability is a funny one that sits somewhere in the middle of all this. Powerful but very hard to learn features aren't necessarily worth as much as simpler features that you can actually use…

For what it's worth, since I think we were getting a little off-track, my point was that the sloppy implementation is starting to catch up with him with respect to his new scripting features. Programs like MUSHclient have very robust and powerful scripting, and that is a strong draw for many people. (Not everybody, sure…)

Truthfully, cMUD really does have probably at least as much scripting capability as MushClient. It's just that CMUD is buggy as hell, and MushClient isn't buggy, at all. I have a copy of CMUD Pro (not the one that caused all the issues on TMC, it's actually licensed, a friend of mine bought it, only had 2 computers and gave me his 3rd license) and it's scripting abilities are indeed powerful as it has support for Lua, VBScript, JavaScript, Perl, and XML. The problem is just it's still too buggy to rely on for jack squat.

Err, well, if I may use an analogy…

"Oh, sure, your car goes just as fast as mine, it's just that your car's engine has this tendency to sometimes explode when you go too fast. But hey, other than that small detail, the cars are just as fast."


So you only get proper scripting support when you get a "Pro" version?


XML isn't a scripting language…

Mudder and friend killed in Tragic Mud Client Accident

Bubba Smith, a 23-year-old mudder at Portsmouth University, England, died March 3 when his CMud client crashed, causing his computer to explode. Also killed in the accident was his friend Boffo, who was looking over his shoulder at the time.

Bubba was a member of the DarkBlade clan, and a level 27 warrior. He was renowned for his vast number of hit points, and for the colourful language he used in the game.

Biffo, the implementor of the mud, joined with other members of Bubba's clan in expressing the deep sense of loss that everyone has felt since learning of this accident. "This saddens everyone, and we send our condolences to Bubba's family in this most difficult time."

Biffo also offered some advice to the playerbase.

"I would just stress to everyone the importance of using a stable mud client," he said.

No, the "Pro" version is just an SSH client in addition to telnet. (Frankly the SSH support is shitty, and not worth using, but other than that and that the "Pro" version has the added zmapper support without having to buy zmapper as well, so essentially for all intents and purposes their the same thing, (for me anyway) but the Pro version is more expensive.)

Priceless, KaVir! :lol: