@WTFE
The "reasoning" is bullshit and is reverse justification for a stupid design decision
The "reasoning" given so far is wrong.
-
@-commands are designated with an @ symbol because they modify the database in memory or on the disk and are meant to be used by game admin. (Saving counts as modification)
-
Commands like look or page are part of a specific category of user commands that manipulate the database and occasionally modify it. (look, for instance, does a room description lookup in the object database, while quit will save your player file to disk)
-
The + syntax was born as a way to indicate a command that was added by that specific locality - where locality could mean game, owner (in relation to current thing) or some random coder.
And it's a category that's absolutely meaningless to the user.
I don't think you're wrong. It can be removed. Actually, removing it takes all of 5, maybe 10 minutes of work. If I do that however, what should the new standard be? Does everything have a + now? Is it all just the command with no @/+ or what have you? Do we keep the @commands and remove their @? Now we have reserved keywords. You can't have your own commands called, for instance: switch, flag, channel, set, create...(This is a large list)
@HelloProject I think one of the disconnects here is that you're comparing MUDs to MUSHs. The tools available to both are different. The fairest comparison we could have between the two would be any random MUD and Evennia, since Evennia allows us to code in a useful programming language with useful paradigms (insert @Griatch here). MUDs are primarily coded in hardcode. Mostly C, sometimes C++ recently, occasionally Java (I know right? I've seen them though) and I've seen at least one Pascal MUD. They're set up, from the beginning, to support a coder adding new features to their hardcode. Most MUDs also support a rudimentary coding language inside the game itself that is usually referred to as just <insert object type here>PROG. Even that is a better tool than MUSHs have access to. In contrast, your average mush developer has to use the built in lisp like language to do everything. You may say, Why don't you just add to the built in hardcode then? I'm glad you asked.
You'll remember where I mentioned that MUDs are typically designed to facilitate modifications to their core systems in hardcode. MUSHs are not designed this way. Evennia is the only MUSH like system designed from the ground up to be modified at the hardcode level. I'm sure that @Ashen-Shugar will jump in at this point and hold up his RhostMUSH sign. He's not wrong, but it's an advanced code base. Your average MUSH code base, however, is designed in such a way that adding new features to it requires modifications of several built in systems. Unlike in our previously mentioned MUD code base, these systems are spread around and sometimes, they're dynamic. It can be, at times, annoying to add new hardcoded features.
But what about the UX
I don't disagree with anything in particular that @faraday said. Too many commands do have inconsistent and redundant usages, especially on a large game like the reach. That was less a factor of the game system, however, and more a factor of how many different coders touched the reach. Thenomain and I talked to each other and kept our stuff consistent. We could also stop using MUSHcode, that would help a lot. RhostMush and Evennia have much better systems for coding.
Question about why +roll Shorthand Word doesn't work for WoD
Answer: Did you mean Academics, Academics.Accounting, Academics.Pre-Law, Academics.Pre-Med...
