[MUD-Dev] The impact of the web on muds

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 26 Dec 97 at 8:38, Greg Munt wrote:
> 
> Let's define what is considered "Web Technology": HTML, definitely; 
> JavaScript, yes; ActiveX, no chance. DHTML is coming, bringing CSS with
> it. Perhaps even XML too. A foreseeable danger is IE's non-compliance with
> Sun. (Was this sorted out? Last I heard, Sun were petitioning Microsoft
> for the removal of the Java logo from its browser...) 
>

There are large differences in JavaScript and Java in capability, 
speed and delivery.  I don't think one could implement a _reasonable_ 
client in JavaScript.  Perhaps you really are referring to Java itself?  

I do not rule out ActiveX or DCOM.  However, I have converted my previous 
client, which was written using VBScript and ActiveX into Java.  The Sun 
vs. Microsoft lawsuit is very much an extension of the DCOM vs. RMI war. As 
the agreement between MS and Sun was secret, there is know way of knowing 
how this will fall out.  You may see DCOM supported by Java in the end as
well as RMI.  :P  I can well understand why MS refuses to support certain 
Java 1.1 extensions.  Oops, I've strayed off signal again...

Someone mentioned here or maybe it was on Usenet (I get confused as to
which mud I've logged in to) that one can run a Java client faster outside 
of the browser environment.  While this is true and while one can even
take advantage of the auto-installation capability of Java, it requires
the potential user to have previously installed a Java runtime environment.
Or, for me to provide it with the client; another system dependency issue.
There is also a plus here for the client/server author.  Using this method, 
I can bypass most of the Java security issues associated with browsers and 
use and abuse the disk storage and processing power of the client.  These 
powers would only be used for good of course. :)

> As far as rapidly-changing technologies go, I see no problem, so long as
> backwards compatibility is observed - and perhaps an icon saying which
> 'version' that page is compliant with (similar to the HTML icons available
> from www.w3.org).

The capabilities of a browser can be queried from within the client
rather easily.  If one takes advantage of this, there's no need to
worry the user over it. 

> Plug-ins are an option, but the danger there is perhaps
> requiring a seperate plugin for each browser - and, of course, the
> potential player who can't be bothered to go away and download yet 
> *another* new plugin!

Yes.  Plugins are also OS dependent.  The same delivery and maintenance 
problems exist with plugins as with stand-alone clients.

> These days, pure text adventures are dead. Does anyone see this happening
> with muds too? Can the commercial successes cross over into the world of
> free muds? Should they? 

Are there free graphical adventure games available?
If not, is this an indication that really slick graphics require the
resources of a commercial environment?

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato