[MUD-Dev] Re: let's call it a spellcraft

[Brandon J. Rickman]

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> On 23 Sep 98, Adam J. Thornton wrote:
> > There's a great maxim from somewhere that I can't remember: there
> > are only three interesting numbers: zero, one, and
> > infinity-defined-as-the-largest- number-your-machine-can-deal-with. 
> > I've found it's usually a good maxim to apply: either you can't have
> > something, you can have one of it, or I'll try to allocate space for
> > it for you and let you know if I can't.
> 
> ...
> I agree,  we should always attempt an implementation  in terms 0, 1 
> and many(unknown/infinity/X).  There are exceptions and instances 
> where we must pay homage at some level to the failings of our 
> silicon, but these should be rare and abstracted if possible.   

This is silly.

Okay, say there are 3 interesting numbers: Zero, One, and Many.  Since
3 is not interesting we should call it Many.  There are Many interesting
numbers.  Or there are 4 interesting numbers: Zero, One, 3, and Many.

You are advocating a very rigid and inhumane programming practice.  Some
thought should go into how numbers are important to the game, not to the
CPU.  Player stats ranging into the thousands would be irritating, stats
in the millions incomprehensible.  A player walking around with 2^31 coins
in her pocket is still a bug, even if the code is bulletproof.

- Brandon