[MUD-Dev] MUD codebases

[Ammon Lauritzen]

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Chris Saik wrote:

> I am a fairly adept C/C++ programmer, but have never worked on a
> MUD before. I would like to know your opinions on which codebase
> is the easiest to learn and modify.

Pretty much any of the modern codebases are fairly easy to modify
once you learn what code goes where. As far as muds written in
straight C, the only one I have extensive experience with is
CircleMUD, and it has plenty of room for expansion. I would imagine
that this holds true for most related codebases, and that's really
what I've seen from the few times I poked around with SMAUG and
such.

> I prefer a codebase that's very flexible -- i.e. easy to make
> adjustments to class, race, and skill selections.  Also one that
> can accomodate almost any type of genre... from cyberpunk to
> medieval.

If flexibility is what you're really after, you probably don't want
something that will require you to recompile and reboot every time
you make a minor change.

Take a look at LP muds. They're slightly more difficult to get
running and are a bit more cpu-intensive than Diku derivs and such,
but they are object oriented and as a result pretty much offer
infinite flexibility. I personally like LDMud more than MudOS or any
of the other drivers. As far as mudlibs go... well, I'd suggest
mine, but it's not really fit for human consumption, and I can't
honestly think of any other than Discworld right now (but it's for
MudOS, I believe).

--
Ammon Lauritzen
http://www.simud.org/


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev