On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Doppleganger Software wrote:
> Personally, I believe that a MUD should only have ONE coder. I have
> coded for MUD's with multiple coders and thet tend to be very
> disorganized (pieces of code lying around all over the place, no one
> knows who did what and who is working on what) or too limiting (RCS
> systems) With one coder, you know who installed what, what you added it
> for, and don't have to worry about security (especially if you are the
> one who RUNS the MUD too) I know a lot of people don't want to be stuck
> like that, and that coding takes a lot of time, but if you add in the
> most important features to a MUD first, open it, and then add the rest
> slowly, you won't have too many problems, and you can just worry about
> bugs and incompatibilities.
I totally agree with this. I am the only one who codes on my MUD,
and although maybe things go a little slower with adding new features then
if we had multi coders, I think overall one coder MUDs are better designed
then Multi-Coder MUDs. Now, this is not true 100%, but in my experience,
it is enough for me not to get another coder.
_\|/_____________________________\|/_ Ryan Lane Gasper _\|/_
/|"You will never see me cause \/------------------\/|\
| I'm always alone" -Ministry dalamar@cybercom.net|
|"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to |
_\|_time_with_the_blood_of_patriots_and_tyrants"_-ThomasJ|/_
/|\ -*-1997-*- /|\
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST