Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 09-14-2010, 06:44 AM

I'm not sure how you'd compare the source code of an open source project with a closed source project, as you can't actually see the source code for the latter. All you can really do is compare the stability of the end products (eg Windows vs Linux). I'm not aware of any obvious decline in the quality of MUSHclient after it became open source - usually when people complain about a particular client being bloated and buggy I can guess which one they're talking about, and it's not MUSHclient.

Speaking personally, I know I sometimes cut corners if I know nobody else is going to see the code. If I'm opening something up to public scrutiny, however, I tend to be far more meticulous in my approach. Not just because I expect other people to use it, but also because poorly written and documented code would reflect badly on me.

I'm using here, where plugins are defined as "self-contained collections of related triggers, aliases, timers, variables and script routines...distributed as a single file, and installed by simply clicking on 'add' in the plugins dialog".

Although it might be nice to provide some sort of generic download protocol, you'd still effectively be using custom plugins - you'd just be distributing them (and associated graphics and sounds) directly through the mud (like an MMORPG client update) rather than the player having to do it manually. But someone would still need to write the plugin, which brings us back to the original concern; if I'm going to invest many hours of work into a custom plugin, I'd rather do it for an open source client.

As far as I'm aware, MXP is the only open protocol offering clickable links and 24-bit colour (I don't think any other clients support Pueblo links? Likewise, Primordiax seems to use its own method of adding links). You've got your XTerm 256 colours, which to be honest are probably enough for most people, but the links are a really nice feature - and I've not seen them in any other public protocols.

The other features are either too rarely supported to be worth adding, or better handled by other protocols (eg sounds and flags).

09-14-2010, 06:44 AM	#79
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Re: The mud client poll I'm not sure how you'd compare the source code of an open source project with a closed source project, as you can't actually see the source code for the latter. All you can really do is compare the stability of the end products (eg Windows vs Linux). I'm not aware of any obvious decline in the quality of MUSHclient after it became open source - usually when people complain about a particular client being bloated and buggy I can guess which one they're talking about, and it's not MUSHclient. Speaking personally, I know I sometimes cut corners if I know nobody else is going to see the code. If I'm opening something up to public scrutiny, however, I tend to be far more meticulous in my approach. Not just because I expect other people to use it, but also because poorly written and documented code would reflect badly on me. I'm using here, where plugins are defined as "self-contained collections of related triggers, aliases, timers, variables and script routines...distributed as a single file, and installed by simply clicking on 'add' in the plugins dialog". Although it might be nice to provide some sort of generic download protocol, you'd still effectively be using custom plugins - you'd just be distributing them (and associated graphics and sounds) directly through the mud (like an MMORPG client update) rather than the player having to do it manually. But someone would still need to write the plugin, which brings us back to the original concern; if I'm going to invest many hours of work into a custom plugin, I'd rather do it for an open source client. As far as I'm aware, MXP is the only open protocol offering clickable links and 24-bit colour (I don't think any other clients support Pueblo links? Likewise, Primordiax seems to use its own method of adding links). You've got your XTerm 256 colours, which to be honest are probably enough for most people, but the links are a really nice feature - and I've not seen them in any other public protocols. The other features are either too rarely supported to be worth adding, or better handled by other protocols (eg sounds and flags).