[DGD]Hello, think you could answer a few questiosn for me? :)

[BladeDarkmour at aol.com]

In response to schmidsj at union.edu on 4/23/00 at 10:04:19 PM Central Daylight 
Time:
 
>> The main difference, as I see it, is that MudOS and its mudlibs are
>> older, much more developed, more complex, and intended, generally,
>> to work with a fantasy adventure type of game. That last point is
>> more true of the mudlibs than of the driver itself, but I think it
>> holds true in both cases. Other types of games can be made to
>> work with the MudOS system, and have been - sci-fi adventures,
>> for instance - but it takes work, and the more you diverge 
>> from that framework, the harder it gets. For example, the
>> MudOS setup assumes that environment() is a nearly sufficient
>> way to describe all location relationships between objects.
>> If you want a grid system, or other more complex relationships,
>> it's harder under MudOS - not impossible, but harder. DGD and
>> its mudlibs, by constrast, are more recent, less developed, and
>> presuppose less about what your game looks like and plays like. 
>> On the other hand, they offers fewer pre-existing features, and
>> equire more core-level work by the mudlib programmer.

The state of the various mudlibs available for the two platforms are of
no consequence to me.  To do what I have planned, if I were to use any
existing mudlibs[1], in the end I would have basicly rewritten it from the
ground up anyways.  Therefore, I may as well have written it from scratch
and saved me the headaches of a half-baked conglomeration of code. :)
 
1. Melville is minimal enough that I possibly could use it.  It has a basic
set of features that seem, from the little I have looked at it, to be well 
done
and would save me the time of doing them anyways.

JD

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