MUD Coding

Venomz · 01-09-2004, 08:15 AM

I am looking for a mudbase that is native to Windows. Does this even exist? If so, can anyone point me in the correct direction?

Amnon · 01-09-2004, 10:13 AM

Yes, there is one:

It looks promising, worth giving a shot.

GenmaC · 01-09-2004, 02:07 PM

Having worked a little bit with the one posted above, I'd also recommend it.

You can also get the win32 smaug port at - but I don't recommend Smaug, or for that matter, any other Diku/Merc codebases, as they use obsolete techniques, no multi-threading, and are usually a hopeless mess inside.

Kylotan · 01-09-2004, 03:38 PM

What a bizarre comment. You don't need multithreading to write a quality product. (Not that I'm saying Smaug is one.)

GenmaC · 01-11-2004, 01:57 PM

Yeah, but you get a lot less hangups when a player runs a lengthy command. It's good practice to use multi-threading for time consuming commands, which many Diku based MUDs do not.

Just making a comment from the professional coding aspect, is all. I've played plenty of fun MUDs that don't use multi-threading.

KaVir · 01-11-2004, 03:49 PM

The only thing I can think of that is worth multithreading in most muds is the dns lookup - and that is available as a snippet. I'm sure you're not recommending against using a particular codebase on the basis that it doesn't have a specific snippet installed by default...

Rhuarc · 01-11-2004, 10:21 PM

Pathfinding and any calls to embedded scripting engines are also good candidates.

Kylotan · 01-12-2004, 10:32 AM

Pathfinding's pretty easy to do in real-time.

GenmaC · 01-12-2004, 05:44 PM

Nah, I recommend against C-based MUDs purely based on the quality of the coding and commenting, which is absolutely terrible. Takes quite a while to figure out why everything does what it does, and I don't think people should have to put up with that...easier to program a lib for an LPC mud or the like.

KaVir · 01-13-2004, 01:39 PM

Woah, hold on! First you were talking about Diku derivatives being bad because they don't use multithreading - now you're saying that all muds written in C are bad because they have poor quality coding and commenting? That's an even bigger jump of logic than your last one! A programming language is just a tool - you cannot judge the quality of code or comments based purely on the language!

Kylotan · 01-13-2004, 07:59 PM

And aren't LPC muds both implemented in C, and provide a C-like syntax as well?

GenmaC · 01-14-2004, 03:30 AM

Sorry, I should have said: The vast majority of Diku derivs in my experience are both written in C and poorly commented, with inane coding methods. C is of course a perfectly valid language to write a MUD, or really anything with, just in my experience I have yet to find a well-written one.

KaVir · 01-14-2004, 12:14 PM

Oh, I agree - but that's hardly something specific to Diku muds. The vast majority of all mud code I've seen is (IMO) poorly written and documented - regardless of codebase or language, or whether it's a snippet, a mudlib, an engine or whatever else. Even most scratch-written muds that I've looked through seem poorly done. Come to think of it, most "professional" code I've looked at is pretty poor as well...

But it wouldn't really be fair to recommend that everyone start from scratch - because while most codebases leave much room for improvement, they're still going to be better than most newcomers would be able to manage. And while they may lack in many ways, Diku derivatives still provide a relatively gentle introduction to mud programming.

angelbob · 02-11-2004, 07:47 PM

DGD runs just fine on Windows. I don't know if it's "native" specifically to Windows because it's run on that *and* Unix (and several other platforms) pretty much from the beginning. But it works just fine on Windows and has a significant user community.

My favorite page on DGD: ". Disclaimer: I'm the primary author and maintainer of that page.

Windows based MUD code - Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CircleMUD on Windows XP	Danlor	Newbie Help	1	12-09-2004 07:08 PM
Cygwin and Windows	Scrod Fungus	MUD Coding	4	03-10-2004 02:36 PM
C++ and Windows	Scrod Fungus	MUD Coding	3	01-13-2004 11:10 PM
Windows Code Base?	Mierza	MUD Coding	3	05-30-2003 12:17 AM
Windows Engine	yagiska	Legal Issues	0	01-22-2003 05:16 AM

01-09-2004, 08:15 AM	#1
Venomz New Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Name: Donovan Location: Easley, SC Home MUD: Armageddon Posts: 12	I am looking for a mudbase that is native to Windows. Does this even exist? If so, can anyone point me in the correct direction?

01-09-2004, 10:13 AM	#2
Amnon Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 140	Yes, there is one: It looks promising, worth giving a shot.

01-09-2004, 02:07 PM	#3
GenmaC Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 68	Having worked a little bit with the one posted above, I'd also recommend it. You can also get the win32 smaug port at - but I don't recommend Smaug, or for that matter, any other Diku/Merc codebases, as they use obsolete techniques, no multi-threading, and are usually a hopeless mess inside.

01-09-2004, 03:38 PM	#4
Kylotan Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nottingham, UK Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc) Posts: 174	What a bizarre comment. You don't need multithreading to write a quality product. (Not that I'm saying Smaug is one.)

01-11-2004, 01:57 PM	#5
GenmaC Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 68	Yeah, but you get a lot less hangups when a player runs a lengthy command. It's good practice to use multi-threading for time consuming commands, which many Diku based MUDs do not. Just making a comment from the professional coding aspect, is all. I've played plenty of fun MUDs that don't use multi-threading.

01-11-2004, 03:49 PM	#6
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	The only thing I can think of that is worth multithreading in most muds is the dns lookup - and that is available as a snippet. I'm sure you're not recommending against using a particular codebase on the basis that it doesn't have a specific snippet installed by default...

01-11-2004, 10:21 PM	#7
Rhuarc Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 50	Pathfinding and any calls to embedded scripting engines are also good candidates.

01-12-2004, 10:32 AM	#8
Kylotan Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nottingham, UK Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc) Posts: 174	Pathfinding's pretty easy to do in real-time.

01-12-2004, 05:44 PM	#9
GenmaC Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 68	Nah, I recommend against C-based MUDs purely based on the quality of the coding and commenting, which is absolutely terrible. Takes quite a while to figure out why everything does what it does, and I don't think people should have to put up with that...easier to program a lib for an LPC mud or the like.

01-13-2004, 01:39 PM	#10
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Woah, hold on! First you were talking about Diku derivatives being bad because they don't use multithreading - now you're saying that all muds written in C are bad because they have poor quality coding and commenting? That's an even bigger jump of logic than your last one! A programming language is just a tool - you cannot judge the quality of code or comments based purely on the language!

01-13-2004, 07:59 PM	#11
Kylotan Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nottingham, UK Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc) Posts: 174	And aren't LPC muds both implemented in C, and provide a C-like syntax as well?

01-14-2004, 03:30 AM	#12
GenmaC Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 68	Sorry, I should have said: The vast majority of Diku derivs in my experience are both written in C and poorly commented, with inane coding methods. C is of course a perfectly valid language to write a MUD, or really anything with, just in my experience I have yet to find a well-written one.

01-14-2004, 12:14 PM	#13
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Oh, I agree - but that's hardly something specific to Diku muds. The vast majority of all mud code I've seen is (IMO) poorly written and documented - regardless of codebase or language, or whether it's a snippet, a mudlib, an engine or whatever else. Even most scratch-written muds that I've looked through seem poorly done. Come to think of it, most "professional" code I've looked at is pretty poor as well... But it wouldn't really be fair to recommend that everyone start from scratch - because while most codebases leave much room for improvement, they're still going to be better than most newcomers would be able to manage. And while they may lack in many ways, Diku derivatives still provide a relatively gentle introduction to mud programming.

02-11-2004, 07:47 PM	#14
angelbob Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 39	DGD runs just fine on Windows. I don't know if it's "native" specifically to Windows because it's run on that and Unix (and several other platforms) pretty much from the beginning. But it works just fine on Windows and has a significant user community. My favorite page on DGD: ". Disclaimer: I'm the primary author and maintainer of that page.

MUD Coding

Windows based MUD code