Member Discussions

There's a smiley on the end of that subject line, people, let's try and keep this light-hearted. :-o ;-)

(Btw, possibly this post should be in 'General Discussion', I'm not sure).

This is a subject that interests me. I guess it's partly that I don't have much experience of Diku derivatives, except as a player, so I probably haven't grasped the finer points of what being a 'builder' actually involves. On many LPMuds there really isn't much of a distinction between coders and builders - all building is done by writing code. Similarly, on many TinyM* systems, anyone who can build objects can also attach code to them.

It only seems to be on Diku MUDs that there is such a sharp distinction between 'builders' and 'coders', presumably as a result of so much of the MUD's functions being run in C that's compiled before the MUD process is launched, rather than scripting code that is modified while the MUD is running. (Mind you, even on Dikus I know there such things as 'mobprogs' which allow quite complicated scripted behaviour in monsters and other objects).

So, I guess, as well, there's an underlying question, here: to what extent is it actually valid to distinguish between 'coders' and 'builders' at all?

But to return to my original point: I understand that building is an essentially creative or artistic process, and that a person who derives satisfaction from writing exceptionally evocative prose descriptions, or devising especially fiendish puzzles won't necessarily get a thrill from churning out computer code, and vice versa. But, nonetheless, we are talking about an inherently interactive medium. And I've always found it hard to understand how anyone can get true satisfaction from constructing MUD areas and objects without having access to the code that is necessary to make those objects interact with players in interesting ways.

Surely if a puzzle is intricate enough that it's satisfying to build it's going to be complex enough in its implementation that you'd need to be a 'coder' to actually construct it?

What's the attraction of being a 'mere' builder?

There are some important distinctions between builders and coders. I'll just talk about the builders who do not code here, instead of the ones where their codebase requires them to actually delve into the code in order to build areas (pretty ugly way of building, if you ask me).

Builders rely on and use the tools provided by coders. Yes, they are like artists. They do creative things with tools provided by coders. They do not see or use any of the C/C++/Java/whateverlanguage coding. Builders use commands to do their work-- createRoom, setItem, setExit, saveArea (I'm just making up names of possible builder commands here). These commands are no different than common player commands such as Say, Walk, Inventory, Eat, etc. They take parameters given by the builder and make appropriate changes to rooms/items.

They might seem "coderlike" through scripting, but don't forget that the scripting is a bit different than actual computer languages. The scripting is a sort of minilanguage that is supported by the real code.

Coders, on the other hand, are not usually involved in the creative/artistic process. They're just the toolmakers. Coders create the mechanisms that Builders use to do their work. Coders create the commands and the activities that are the force behind them.

Attraction of being a builder? I guess it's more "fun". It's sort of like comparing the guys who create mods for games to the guys who code the games and provide the modding tools. You are able to create interesting stuff. You don't get caught up in the dirty ugly stuff and are free to push the limits of the framework of the MUD.

I hope I answered your question. I'm probably wrong, but this is just how I've viewed the situation.

ave atque vale

=)

To expand on what AdmProteus wrote, a builder can learn how to build on a DIKU in about twenty minutes. IMHO It would take a most exceptional builder to learn how to make anything but the most minor changes to a DIKU codebase in the same amount of time.

Personally I think coding is just as fun, creative, etc. as building, but the purpose of building is to be fun and creative, and a good builder is not always a good coder, and vice-versa.

Mssr O.

Moin,

builders dont want to touch the C code. Building is not much more difficult than using the virtual post office of a mud to send a mud-mail. Builders are good in writing english and in expressing ideas. Coders provide the tools to allow normal people to express complex ideas.

RoM has several levels. At the lowest level are mortal builders and mortal quest masters, who might use some of the commands of immortal level. The next level are the lower immortals. Those help to teach the mortal builders and are using object script, mobscript, roomscript and playerscript to build the more complex ideas. The higher immortals are actualy improving the C code. Criscal who is the implementor has the final word over every line of code, and is similar to Linus with his Kernel, one mind who knows every change of code.

In result - RoM seldom crashes - even if its written in C. Port 3000 is crashing once or twice a month - but this is the test port - port 4000 is stable as a rock ;)

This is of course much easier and more difficult with a higher language. First of all its easier to teach builders complex coding. Our script languages are not much easier than lets say Smalltalk and much more restricted. But my experience with LP was that to many cooks ruin a meal. I've also played a LP (nr 4 in the topmudsites list) for some time - but I've quitted because the MUD was crashing to often - and the creators showed the habit to ignore bugs. My explaination: they dont understand the flood of bugs because someone else created them. There is'nt a single mind anymore, who knows every change of the code.

ciao,Michael

Short answer -

*Kitkat runs away, screaming in terror at the thought of having to code...anything...*

Longer answer -

I am sure there are exceptions but from what I have seen coders and builders tend to approach mud design completely differently.

My husband codes and he enjoys it. He will build if pushed but he would much rather code flags and utilities to enhance the building process than actually write out room descs or map out areas.

I like to write. I like building working cities and enjoy adding progs. (repeat after me -progs are not coding) I live for extra descs. I love mapping. I would rather have my fingernails pulled out than have to code.

Different strengths and different ways of seeing a project.

Kitkat -

It's Left brain vs. Right brain.

I'm very left-brained. I consider writing code an art form, but it is an art form that is controlled by a concrete set of rules. I take comfort in the fact that if I write the same line of code twice, I'll get the same result. If I tried to draw a portrait, it would NEVER look the same twice. (They probably wouldn't even resemble one another.)

In my experience, people who are mathematically inclined (left-brained) tend to also be better programmers, whereas more artistically gifted individuals (music, drawing, etc...) do not gravitate in that direction. Coders tend to like expected results and finite choices. Builders like to be creative without being hampered by syntax or predetermined conventions.

There are people who are both extremely talented coders and gifted artists, but they aren't *normal*. :)

Good question; great answers.

As one who does both, although I was dragged into coding kicking, screaming, and scratching the whole way, I can understand the OP's query - coding while building is like being able to really cook instead of subsisting on frozen entrees.

I was scared to code. The words looked almost the same, but they had different meanings, you couldn't trust them. And instead of an inteligent audience that could read typos, you have this damn compiler that takes EVERYTHING literally. And if you make a mistake, BAD THINGS happen. Like last week, when all the vendors started serving poisoned food. ;)

Maybe I was afraid of being a Coder. You know, like maybe I'd grow a beard with specks of food in it, or start wearing pocket protectors. I don't really like pizza that much.

It's not just Builders. RP Staff has the same problem. When I was working on SR Detroit, we put in a gang system. I told the staff, 'To join someone to a gang, type:
&gangname DBref=1
They said, 'Couldn't you make a +command for it, like:
+joingang playername=gangname/Initiate
Now, that just looked like a lot more typing to me, but they insisted. Writing an attribute directly to the character scared them.

Mobprogs? No thanks. I'll just keep writing Specials. I've learned MUSHcode, now ROM C, and I really don't want...
Is there a recognised phobia of learning new languages?

Is there a recognised phobia of learning new languages?

Xenoglossophobia.

(I just *knew* that would come in handy someday.)

"I take comfort in the fact that if I write the same line of code twice, I'll get the same result. " --bullseye

Ah, but as a good object-oriented coder, you shouldn't write the same code twice ;)

Nevertheless, I do it all the time because I'm too lazy to generalize my code and create new classes to handle some common functions =\
I'll get around to it someday... get it working before optimization.

Anyways, off topic....

To answer on a more personal note like other repliers:
Currently creating a codebase from scratch, I code to build. That is, I code so that I can eventually get to build with it. The idea of being able to create fun stuff motivates me to create more and more capabilities. I eventually wanna start building, but I keep getting distracted by the idea of building with COOLER tools. It's a vicious cycle. =(
For example: I initially wanted to create a 3D space-based room system to allow for various proximity-dependent features (i.e., having a bomb fall from the sky, land in one room, destroy it and its walls and any objects in it, as well as inflict damage upon objects/rooms within a certain blast radius). Then I thought, gee whiz, this is nice, but I want MORE...... let's now also have rooms organized into "buildings" that can completely collapse, that can have windows to shoot out of to the street below, that have walls that can be climbed, that have roofs that helicopters can land on, a highly deformable environment...

I'm never gonna get to build. Too much stuff to be coded.

Still, coding IS kinda fun. You get a satisfying emotional response when you test something out and see it actually work.

Ah, but as a good object-oriented coder, you shouldn't write the same code twice ;)

...get it working before optimization.

Spoken like a true XP programmer. :)

I started to teach myself C and I will say Building is way, way easier then coding. I been building for 6 years and just started to try and teach myself C. Totally different almost.

Oh, well, yeah, but that's C - it seems to be specifically designed to obfuscate. You want to try learning a proper language.

(evil grin)