Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 09-16-2010, 11:30 PM

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.

09-16-2010, 11:30 PM	#101
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	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.