[DGD]Some questions.

[Stephen Schmidt]

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Geir Harald Hansen wrote:
> lately I'm planning on writing a mudlib. Which I would base on DGD and its
> kernel library. DGD is what I know, but people seem to recommend MudOS.
> Some even say DGD is outdated.
> Anyone who knows both systems who can tell me how they compare?

I've written (or helped write) mudlibs for both; I don't know
much about drivers but I can offer a little perspective.

It depends, a lot, on what purposes you have in mind for your mud.
You can write a perfectly wonderful game for people to play without
having closures and functions objects, and in fact, if you're going
to be promoting people to wizard who are not serious programmers,
then KISS applies. (Keep It Short and Simple.) For that reason
a simpler, "outdated" driver might be better. Driver design, IMHO,
has moved in the direction of providing greater and greater
functionality for complex structures over the last few years;
that's wonderful if you want or need those structures, but it's
not good if you don't need them and don't really want them (which
is my personal take on it).

The one thing that is true about MudOS that is not true about DGD
is that there are a couple of fully functional game-oriented
mudlibs available for MudOS but none for DGD. To my mind, the
main reason -not- to use DGD is the absence of pre-existing
game mudlibs (other than the 2.4.5 one). If you're looking to
code your own lib from scratch, or from a bare-bones mudlib
such as Lil (for MudOS) or Melville (for DGD), then IMHO you're
much better off with DGD, which is a simpler driver to work
with and tends towards more elegant solutions to mudlib
problems (again IMHO).

As to specific details of driver features, I plead ignorance :)


Stephen Schmidt

It is vain to expect a well-balanced government without a
well-balanced society.
			-- Gideon Welles



List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd