27 Jul, 2009, Kintar wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Ugh. I was making some progress on this over the weekend. Now, however, I am sitting at work, waiting for a meeting in which I will (hopefully) finally resolve some resource blocking issues that are preventing me from working on anything, so I've got free time…and I realize I didn't commit my last set of changes to source control. :redface: I hate it when that happens.
27 Jul, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Grimble said:
I'm revealing my age here, but did play Zork in the early 80s and remember being frustrated with trying to get the parser to understand the intent of my commands. Fixed syntax (e.g., unix shell commands) would have been preferable in my case.


Kintar said:
I agree, which is why I feel any NLP designed for a mud should also be able to understand the more compact, speed-typist syntax.

Agreed. I'm also a big fan of having a simple fixed syntax, consistent across multiple commands. I certainly don't mind the parser being flexible, but not at the expense of enforced syntactical complexity.

Being able to type "give the iron sword to the ugly goblin" is nice, but in most cases I'll just want to type "give sword goblin" or "give goblin sword", and IMO those should both work as well. I always got irritated by muds that forced me to add the word "to" between "sword" and "goblin".