From: Ryan Gasper or Steven Arnold (dalamar@CYBERCOM.NET)
Date: 08/27/98

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Doppleganger Software wrote:

> Personally, I believe that a MUD should only have ONE coder.  I have
> coded for MUD's with multiple coders and thet tend to be very
> disorganized (pieces of code lying around all over the place, no one
> knows who did what and who is working on what) or too limiting (RCS
> systems)  With one coder, you know who installed what, what you added it
> for, and don't have to worry about security (especially if you are the
> one who RUNS the MUD too)  I know a lot of people don't want to be stuck
> like that, and that coding takes a lot of time, but if you add in the
> most important features to a MUD first, open it, and then add the rest
> slowly, you won't have too many problems, and you can just worry about
> bugs and incompatibilities.

        I totally agree with this. I am the only one who codes on my MUD,
and although maybe things go a little slower with adding new features then
if we had multi coders, I think overall one coder MUDs are better designed
then Multi-Coder MUDs. Now, this is not true 100%, but in my experience,
it is enough for me not to get another coder.

        _\|/_____________________________\|/_ Ryan Lane Gasper _\|/_
         /|"You will never see me cause    \/------------------\/|\
          | I'm always alone" -Ministry|
          |"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to   |
         /|\                     -*-1997-*-                     /|\

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST