Re: The mud client poll
 

My preference "tends" to be for non-custom script languages too, which have a fair range of language features. Most clients have... what could be called a "subset" of commands, that are useful, when specific to basic stuff you want to do with muds, but, at the same time, tend to be irritatingly limited, if you want to do something that isn't in the "standard" lexicon of things you are *expected* to want. Personally, I hate all of them. lol But, yeah, there are a few that provide fairly complex, if client specific, scripting, and support the full set of ANSI functions.

This just means that there is no rational purpose in not reworking ones that don't, and have a wider feature set to begin with.

Re: The mud client poll
 

TinTin++ 2.0 has just in time compilation and is equal to C with the exception that low level string processing must be done with regular expressions. The language is typeless and provides associative arrays as well.

Another advancement is that scripts can be multi-lined and indented, in the past the typical tintin script was one long line of commands, making scripts so unreadable that any kind of serious programming was out of the question.

From my own experience most things are a breeze to script, low level string operations require some creativity with regex, and if push comes to shove you can use #script to use another scripting language.

Another cool feature that I don't believe any of the other mud clients offer is that you can run console programs like pine, lynx, ssh, and sftp within TinTin++ with full scripting capabilities.

Re: The mud client poll
 

Hmm, never even heard of VipMUD, not sure I could really class is as being very popular based on that. At least not in general, might be popular among players on your specific MUD, but out of the thousands of mudders I know none have ever mentioned using said client.

Re: The mud client poll
 

Downloaded it, I quickly realized why I'd never heard of it. It's $30, essentially the same price as cMUD ($29.95), but doesn't look to even be in the same league. GUI is not user-friendly, and is almost non-existant, and its feature list is miniscule compared to cMUDs.

EDIT:

While zMUD is not officially supported on Windows Vista and Windows 7 it still works perfectly fine on both Operating Systems. It does require being ran as admin on them, but I hardly consider that trivial of task (especially since in properties you can set a program to always be ran as admin instead of having to select it every time you wish to run the program) to be a deal-breaker.

Re: The mud client poll
 

Are you sure that's all? Because that "Some people might be able to force zMUD to run on Vista and Windows 7, but it is not supported. Beyond just installation and running problems, there are other severe memory limits and other problems with zMUD on newer versions of Windows."

But either way, the fact still remains that I've had players switching from zMUD because they couldn't get it working.

Re: The mud client poll
 

It is a mud client specifically for blind players.

Re: The mud client poll
 

Yep, or at least that's all I've ever had to do, and I'm running the version of Windows which I'd expect it to have the most issues with (x86-64 Win 7).

Re: The mud client poll
 

In almost all cases, if an application won't run unless its in "admin" mode, its usually due to it installing into "Program Files", and then attempting to write data to/from that location. Simply installing it to someplace else will tend to fix it. There are more than a few I use that still try to do that, and some of them, while they support adding additional locations for files instead of using the defaults, don't make setting that up exactly trivial. In some respects, it was stupid for them to be placing stuff in their own folders anyway imho, kind of like how 100% of all applications "insist" they need to be in the "main" trunk of the "Start" menu, even if it would be more logically to offer "media", or "games", or some sort of sub-subject as an option. Once people get the program working, more or less, and they are ready to package it, things like "Should be store user files here?", and "Are we an idiot for storing the link to the application in the same menu as all 800 other applications the user installed previously?", just never becomes something worth bothering with, or something.

Have to go in once a year and clean up their mess. lol

Re: The mud client poll
 

I use wxMUD and Lyntin, depending on my needs at the moment. Both have nice and clean interfaces, and varying potentials for extending them. I've thought about creating a Lyntin module for the mud I'm working on as a break from the main server coding/building, which has some good potential. I've also messed around with Mudlet before but I don't think I will be switching over to it as my primary client.