[MUD-Dev] common server design

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <33B032DA.B9117C8 at darklock.com>, on 06/24/97 
   at 09:54 PM, Caliban Tiresias Darklock <caliban at darklock.com> said:

>Chris Gray wrote:
>> 
>> [Caliban:]

>> Doing that stuff while ignoring what the server is like is bound to run 
>> into troubles. 

>That viewpoint basically hammers a fundamental theory of
>object-oriented  programming, which is that no part of the program
>should rely upon any knowledge or assumptions regarding the rest of the 
>program. 

Which is where I arrived at the base rule for my server (long before I
had any idea of what OO was):

  Any feature must be able to be programmable on any object without
requiring code access or changes to any other object in the game.

<<Not advancing the thread a whole lot here, but hey, I only have 173
messages left to be caught up with the list.>>

<<<Before any of you get antsy, I review every message as soon as it
hits the list, while it is being broadcast.  (I'm not paranoid enough
to review it before its broadcast -- I trust you'se guys)  However,
Actually replying to messages can and does get delayed a whole
bunch...as in now.>>>

>> :I often see a sentiment expressed on this list...
>> 
>> The fact that someone doesn't intend to be totally driven by the demands
>> of "users" doesn't mean that person isn't interested in what users and
>> other implementors have to say. Quite the contrary, I would say.

>I usually see that sentiment expressed when someone says "I don't
>like the way you did that and I would rather see it done differently". 
>(Of course, if the disagreement is expressed by saying "That sucks, 
>you moron, do this instead", then I can see a little outrage being 
>perfectly appropriate.) When someone says they don't like what you're 
>doing, particularly if they have a well-reasoned and logical 
>alternative, it generally indicates at least the *possibility* that 
>you really are doing it wrong.

This suggests that there is a "right" camp and a "wrong" -- dangerous
assumptions in this game.  Heck, DIKU can be profitably held up as a
prime example of greviously bad design and general all round excellant
example of how NOT to do things -- yet, it runs, and can certainly be
defined as "working", even if you may think non-optimally.  

For me the real question is "better or worse?" and then defining what
the scale being measured is, and whether that scale is applicable to
what I want to do.  A recently commonly discussed scale is "Better or
worse for RP."  I generally don't value that scale for game design and
so largely devalue those measurements as incidental or unimportant. 
Comparitively however I value the "Better or worse for player combat"
scale a lot more.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...