Ok, there were several posts that probably answered your question. I'm going to jump in and put in my viewpoint as to why I chose Circle over other codebases. (btw, Smaug and AFKmud, a Smaug derivative, seem very stable) 1. I wanted a codebase that someone or someones were still working on improving it. 2. I wanted it very basic as I have my ideas as to what it should be. Circle gave me a minimum working mud that is small and easy to change. 3. Circlemud code is improving all the time, getting better organized and cleaner. As of 21, I consider it cleaner and easier to understand than smaug or the afkmud I mentioned. I've looked at others but they're too buggy or unstable. As a programmer, I need the stability. 4. I don't want to have to rip out a command that was poorly implemented from a "mature" codebase. Ripping things out tends to make codebases more unstable. 5. If you start with a "mature" codebase, you'd have to work hard to change "everything" to make it your own mud, whereas, Circle's minimal design allows me to change things quicker. 6. Snippets - while it's true that the changes can and will break old snippets, I feel that's not what the snippets are for. The snippets are to prompt ideas for you. You look at a snippet to see how it was done and you look at your code and implement it or figure out a better way. 7. If you ever looked at some of the snippets, you'll see several versions of a snippet, autoexits and score comes to mind. This shows that everyone's view will be different and I only look at them to see the different ways of implementation so they'll spark my own ideas. 8. With a smaller codebase, the circlemud team can focus on making code better without worrying about the mud itself changing. If, in the process of changing the code, they found it broke a command or class system, they'll either fix the change they made or fix the command or class system. If the mud kept getting bigger, it means that much more of the mud to test for breakage. It's simple programming science. I forget the formula, but there's a direct relationship between the number of modules and how they relate to each other in testing. One module is one test. Two modules is one connection. Three is three connections. Four becomes 6 connections. Five is 10. As you can see, the number of modules grow quickly once you get past 4 modules. I think that sums up to what I wanted to say. If I'm wrong about the number of connections, feel free to correct me. I'm always learning. :) Gerald -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | | Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT