Re: buf, buf1, buf2, arg: J J & E

From: George Greer (
Date: 07/21/01

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Mark Setzer wrote:

>using a stock code mud (ie, only modifying world files and such to
>customize - or not even that) is a joke. the norm has become to download
>the codebase and immediately patch several additions that the ftp site is
>just rife with. they're all good.

That's a bad thing? That's our goal.  We don't write a featureful server.
We write a clean server that is easily extensible. If you've read some of
my previous e-mails you probably know I'm in favor of evolving a bit by
including such items as ASCII player and object files but not the kitchen
sink worth of OLC tools.  That's why we have the four basic classes and no
races.  I think the original plan was more for original implementation than
which patch to download, but we don't tell you what to do.

>i'm not in charge of your guys' release cycle. but for crying out loud,
>even though we're still in this 3.0 beta stage, do we REALLY need to yank
>out code that invalidates the use of the majority of the serious patches
>for every previous release?

Should our development be driven by the existance of external patches?  If
so we might as well stop now and throw up our hands because no matter what
changes we do in the future will result in something breaking.  Especially
regarding OLC interaction.

>i also don't know your timetable, but 4 months seems like a pathetically
>small amount of time to grant implementers to get with the program.

It took me ~12 hours from scratch.  The implementors will have a patch
taking care of every stock usage.  It's going to take them 4 months to fix
the code they've written? That assumes they want to fix their code too.
They're free to rename it send_to_charf() if they want and add a single
letter to the new function calls.

George Greer

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST