From: beeman@cats.ucsc.edu (Adam Beeman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.lp
Subject: Re: * PEACE PLEASE! *
Date: 31 Aug 1992 00:45:59 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


mmcg@cs.monash.edu.au (Mike  Mc Gaughey) writes:
>A simple existence proof for Shattered World:

>1) TMI claims CD is not the best mud around, because TMI has done some
>   things better.  This is clearly correct, as TMI has some rather
>   talented people, a few of whom actually know what they are talking
>   about.

Actually, I think CD is pretty hot stuff.
But, I think "best" is an extremely useless word.  Certainly CD is not
the "best" mud for just anybody to log into and learn LPC on.  However
TMI is highly suitable for this.

>2) CD claims TMI is not the best mud around, because CD has done some
>   things better.  This is clearly correct, as CD has some rather talented
>   people, a few of whom actually know what they are talking about.

Again, TMI fits a certain niche, which isn't necessarily that of making
a good game with a consistent reality and a playable world.  So, TMI is
certainly not the "best" mud as regards to playbility and realism.
Genesis, however, *is* much more playable if you're looking for a game.

>3) There are other drivers around, and most of them are available by
>   FTP.  But the people at CD and TMI will have examined these muds, and
>   incorporated their good ideas into their respective drivers.
>   Therefore, there can be no publically available drivers better than
>   CD's or TMI's.

However, "better" is in the eye of the beholder.  If I wish to build a 
mud based on the 2.4.5 mudlib, then there are *lots* of drivers better
suited for these purposes than the CD driver or MudOS.

>4) Since programming a mud is an intensely personal thing, anyone
>   maintining an extremely good driver will occasionally post about it.

Of course.

>By lemmas 1 and 2, we know that neither CD's nor TMI's driver is the
>best.

Actually, lemmas 1 and 2 state nothing about drivers, only muds in general.
Also, you fail to state what purpose the driver will be used for.

> By lemma 3, we know that there are no ftp'able drivers which
>surpass either one (so DR, etc, are out).

Your logic is already broken, but you're probably right.

> Therefore, there must exist
>at least one mud which is better than either of them, and, by lemma 3,
>better than all publically available drivers (since it is better than
>CD and TMI, and they are better than other drivers).

Where did this come from?  This is a premise, not a conclusion.
This has no support from any of the preceding arguements.

>But by lemma 4, we know that the authors of any really good driver will
>post about it.  The only people posting about the wonders of their non-
>distributed driver are Geoff and me.

Actually, Amylaar posts about his driver, too.  Surely you aren't going to
argue this point.

>Therefore, Shattered's game driver exists and is the best one (un)available.

For what?  I'll be happy to provide you with the best driver in terms of
readability, or the driver that will crash most reliably, or the driver that
is best at producing segmentation faults, or the driver that has the most
flexibility, or the driver that will run best with a 3.1.2 compat-mode 
mudlib, or... 

None of these comparisons are at all valid.  Each driver is geared towards
a different *purpose*.  

Mike... go take a logic class.  You obviously can't argue your way out
of a paper bag using logic.  And don't try arguing with a philosopher.

Oh, btw, which is "better", a playing mud, or a coding mud?

-Adam, fortunately also Buddha@TMI


-- 
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
#define NAME	"Adam Beeman"
#define EMAIL	"beeman@{cats, ucscb}.ucsc.edu"
inherit SIGNATURE; // enhanced .sig virus
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.lp