Re: Whats the point?

From: Gerald Florence (
Date: 06/28/02

Ok,  there were several posts that probably answered  your
question.  I'm going to jump in and put in my viewpoint as to why I
chose Circle over other codebases. (btw, Smaug and AFKmud, a
Smaug derivative, seem very stable)

1.  I wanted a codebase that someone or someones were still
working on improving it.

2.  I wanted it very basic as I have my ideas as to what it should
be.  Circle gave me a minimum working mud that is small and easy
to change.

3.  Circlemud code is improving all the time, getting better
organized and cleaner.  As of 21, I consider it cleaner and easier to
understand than smaug or the afkmud I mentioned.  I've looked at
others but they're too buggy or unstable.  As a programmer, I need
the stability.

4.  I don't want to have to rip out a command that was poorly
implemented from a "mature" codebase.  Ripping things out tends
to make codebases more unstable.

5.  If you start with a "mature" codebase, you'd have to work hard
to change "everything" to make it your own mud, whereas, Circle's
minimal design allows me to change things quicker.

6.  Snippets - while it's true that the changes can and will break old
snippets, I feel that's not what the snippets are for.  The snippets
are to prompt ideas for you.  You look at a snippet to see how it
was done and you look at your code and implement it or figure out
a better way.

7.  If you ever looked at some of the snippets, you'll see several
versions of a snippet, autoexits and score comes to mind.  This
shows that everyone's view will be different and I only look at them
to see the different ways of implementation so they'll spark my own

8.  With a smaller codebase, the circlemud team can focus on
making code better without worrying about the mud itself changing.
 If, in the process of changing the code, they found it broke a
command or class system, they'll either fix the change they made
or fix the command or class system.  If the mud kept getting
bigger, it means that much more of the mud to test for breakage.
It's simple programming science.  I forget the formula, but there's a
direct relationship between the number of modules and how they
relate to each other in testing.  One module is one test.  Two
modules is one connection.  Three is three connections.  Four
becomes 6 connections.  Five is 10.  As you can see, the number
of modules grow quickly once you get past 4 modules.

I think that sums up to what I wanted to say.  If I'm wrong about the
number of connections, feel free to correct me.  I'm always
learning. :)


   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |
   | Newbie List:   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT