04 Jul, 2010, Hakuten wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Im an experienced builder thats tired of building on muds i either dont want to play personally, or dont have players lol. I like a mud that offers clans and playerkilling. not to picky about what kind of mud, just tha it is fun to play
05 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
So did you give up on learning how to program already? :smirk:
05 Jul, 2010, Runter wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Well, learning to program is a more daunting task than most people realize at first glance.
05 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
True. It's nice to see people that stick it out though. It's the only way to really make something you're happy with.
For me at least.
05 Jul, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Learning to program is a long and sometimes obsessive process, I think it's a good idea to have other projects going during that time to take your mind off of it occasionally.
05 Jul, 2010, Koron wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, if I hadn't picked up mud code while I was a bored teenager, I would surely never find the time to start now. It's a long and difficult process, but it's also very rewarding.
05 Jul, 2010, Hakuten wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
no actually i finally got smaugfuss to compile and run, but am still having problems with it cuzi cant use any commands when i log on with a player or admin. However i still like building and im not gonna abandon it simply cuz im taking a look at code
05 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I've thought about writing a code-base specifically targeted for newbies. And I'm not talking about a friendly OLC.
My newest idea would be to write an application that has a GUI for windows / linux. It wouldn't be an area builder, it would
be a MUD builder. You would be able to customize EVERYTHING. You could define data types with wizards, create sub-systems.
You could make any changes you want. Why not have a wizard for commands? This would virtually allow anyone to create their
own MUD without any programming ability. Once you have made your modifications, you would compile your file, which would produce
the source-code for you.

This of course is the complete opposite of learning how to program. You really won't progress as a programmer this way, but if the application was
good enough, you wouldn't have to.
05 Jul, 2010, Hakuten wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
sounds interesting stuff like that is out there already tho i think?
05 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Hakuten said:
sounds interesting stuff like that is out there already tho i think?

Oh?
05 Jul, 2010, Runter wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Sounds like you want really complex configuration files. Keep in mind…if everything could be solved with really complex configuration files the complex solution would require something more convoluted than just having them use a programming language in the first place. I mean, that's practically what programming languages are—And that's why people build codebases and frameworks to give people a place to start with that tool.

It seems to me the notion you're going for is some kind of metaprogramming, but I hardly see the purpose. Why generate a source file at all? Why does it need to be in C? Doesn't make sense to me for a project like this. Of course, a project like this doesn't seem to make sense to me anyways. Configuration files are nice, but not for completely open ended situations. They're built around solid constraints.

edit:
Just to clarify, I think it's a better idea to use this type of metaprogramming for scripts to generate somewhat blank templates for various things. An example might be a script/process for creating a new command and creating the appropriate source file. This doesn't really accomplish what you're talking about. The person would still need to be aware of the code to make any meaningful changes.
05 Jul, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Someone made a mud creation program a few years ago. I think they got about 3/4 of the way with it. I'm trying to find it on TMC, found something else instead:

http://muddesigner.codeplex.com/

This other program I can't remember the name of was more like Gamemaker or RPGmaker but for muds.
05 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
@Runter:

I didn't say that it would have to be C. In my head I was thinking Ruby. But you have a good point that it is just complex configuration files.
But, a configuration file (on it's own) to a newb is probably just as confusing as a block of code. Without some sort of visual anchor, someone
brand new will give up and stick to what they know, or they will go through mental bootcamp and learn how to write code. IMO, at the end of the day, if the application is sophisticated enough, the admin would have a satisfying code-base that could do pretty much whatever they could
think of, which is not something they could do with any Diku mud.

I suppose it would really just be a highly configurable mudlib. Only the user wouldn't have to learn LPC.
05 Jul, 2010, Runter wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I just think the notion that you can express complex things without using a relatively complex language to do it isn't possible. Of course, this all depends on how complex these things we want to allow to be expressed are. I take away from what you said that you want them to be able to express virtually anything…that's what programming languages are for.

And yeah, I realize you didn't say C. But you did say compile your file. That's what led me to that conclusion. I guess you perhaps just meant "run that file" or whatever.
06 Jul, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
But a complex thing can be built up from simpler parts, and I think there's something to the idea of using simple domain-specific languages for creating specific things. If you were to write a suite of these tools (and by languages I don't just mean code syntax, it could be graphical, or a hybrid), that might make mud creation accessible to more creators.

Some creative people might not otherwise have the interest or raw ability to code very well. Of course at this point we're getting more into the game creation and going away from learning to code at all ;D.
06 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I just think the notion that you can express complex things without using a relatively complex language to do it isn't possible

It's possible. But I think you mean that at a certain point it becomes so impractical that you might as well use a programming language. Consider
a web page tool like dreamworks. It allows the user to virtually do anything that straight HTML can do. It even adds nifty scripting features for you like
onMouseOver. You can add a form, fields, and post methods. In fact, certain things are much more agile like tables and "style" tags.

What I'm proposing isn't all that much different, and goes along with my original post. I'm not saying that Dreamweaver makes a better page than someone
who knows HTML, Javascript, XML, AJAX, ETC. I just think that it's worth a shot to make something for all the good builders out there that don't have the time
to learn a programming language.

I think the middle ground to both our viewpoints is to make the bulk of it GUI tools, and a small portion some sort of simplistic macro language that does a few
things on the fly. It would have to be extremely easy to learn, otherwise the whole thing is a bust.
06 Jul, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Hakuten said:
no actually i finally got smaugfuss to compile and run, but am still having problems with it cuzi cant use any commands when i log on with a player or admin. However i still like building and im not gonna abandon it simply cuz im taking a look at code


Make sure you uncomment the cygwin line in the Makefile.
06 Jul, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I'm not saying that Dreamweaver makes a better page than someone who knows HTML, Javascript, XML, AJAX, ETC. I just think that it's worth a shot to make something for all the good builders out there that don't have the time to learn a programming language.

The difference is that Dreamweaver is creating a static presentation, not a dynamic world with logic reacting to potentially complex series of events with many actors running around at the same time.

There is a lot to be said for abstracting complex but relatively common tasks into simple bite-sized chunks. An example is giving a mob a home and a workplace, with times at which to wake up, go to work, leave work, and finally arrive home. You can program these by hand using mudprog (or similar), of course, but you might as well encapsulate them into simple templates that can be "plugged and played". Many games have similar notions, such as FPS games with push-button elevators. It's all the same logic, and so you create templates to quickly reuse the logic.

But this can only go so far; as soon as you want to step outside the boxes of prepackaged templates, you basically are programming again. Yes, you might be using larger pieces than mudprog, but if you ever need to do something that doesn't have a pre-built piece, you need to build it yourself.

This is what mudprog already is, incidentally: an abstraction on top of the nuts-and-bolts C side of the engine. It's quite sensible to raise the level higher. But to think that you can actually escape having to do any programming no matter what you're trying to achieve simply isn't realistic.
06 Jul, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
This is why I like these types of discussions. It allows one to see things from another perspective. After
thinking about it, the best idea would be to build the GUI, and add code (in a very simple language) as events.
Much like the way someone could use Access to build a database. You can use Query Builder to make things work,
but you can also use VBA to perfect things. In the end, the user can get their game started by using the tools
available, and perfect things as they go. I think the real problem for beginners isn't learning the syntax or the semantics.
Learning how to structure a virtual world is daunting task for even experienced programmers. If you take as much weight
off of the user, and give them built in examples and other goodies, you shelter them from the "nity grity" which is what
turns away most from the endevor.

Ultimately, the goal would be to minimize the Diku-footprint of cookie cutter games, and stimulate new commers in the
community.
06 Jul, 2010, Hakuten wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
heh i myself dont have any code experience, vut plenty of build experience. and building isnt a problem at all for me, but code is, thus im am currently in the process of looking for a mentor of sorts to kinda show me the bare basics so i can learn hands on, as thats how i learn best
0.0/35