[MUD-Dev] Java and Javascript

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On 03:48 PM 2/25/98 +0000, I personally witnessed Matt Chatterley jumping
up to say:
>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
>> At 03:37 PM 2/16/98 +0000, Matt Chatterley wrote:
>> >On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
>> >> At 11:11 AM 2/14/98 +0000, Mat Chatterley wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Absolutely agreed that the browser interface is not useful. If
anything,
>> >> >it means a waste of resources!
>> >
>> >Albeit in a slightly ranty form, this contains some very interesting
>> >points (and I'm not certain to what degree this is serious, but in either 
>> >case, an interesting attitude - not necessarily Caliban's). Dissection in
>> >parts follows.
>> 
>> Well, I went flying off on a tirade as usual. I have a tendency to do that,
>> and I just hope I'm not leaving people with the idea that I'm some bitter,
>> pathetic jerk who has nothing better to do than argue with people. ;)
>
>Don't worry, we know you love us really. ;)

If I didn't, would I post here? ;)
  
>My client is
>actually building up to being 'canned' by the way; it exists as a series

>of Java classes (I think some will soon be Java.beans, once I get another
>text on them), and will *very* shortly have the ability to automatically
>download and update itself (asking for permission first). 

Why would you ask permission? I mean, have you ever been offered a free
upgrade to the latest version of a program and said 'No'? If you do this
right and don't have to download the whole thing over again but only the
pieces that have changed, why would anyone *not* want to upgrade? If you
can think of some reasons, why not just look for those reasons up front?
For example, if the system requirements for your client change, why not
check them first and only download the update if the user can support it?

>Re: security bugs in Java, this is somewhat irrelevant, since you cannot
>really code at a more 'basic' level than the language you are using. My
>work would be out a bit faster if it were browser-based, but it wouldn't
>really do what *I* want it to do (and it'd probably be *less* bulletproof,
>since I wouldn't have absolute control over it, or not *as* absolute).

Well, what I was getting at with that is that whenever you start from a
specific codebase like the JDK or a browser or even an SDK or set of
foundation classes, whatever bugs and problems may be in that code will
show up in your own. It's difficult for the user to tell the difference
between a bug in the client and a bug in the underlying framework, so you
end up having to tell an awful lot of people that problem X is not your
fault and to go bug company Z about it. If you write really good code on
top of a buggy framework, YOUR code won't have bugs, and you'll get a
reputation for blaming all the client's problems on other people -- which
is not really fair, is it?

 
>> Consider a framed site, with the terminal session in one frame, a table of
>> contents in another, and the help file in another. I can browse the help
>
>Interesting that you mention this; I intend to allow 'split screens' via a
>separate communication protocol (the mud can send information to the
>client for display in a separate window, do clickable menus, and so
>forth). This would allow this effect to a point; but yes I see what you
>mean. Otoh, I can only work in one terminal at once, and I don't really
>mind having my screen spammed while I read files (although being able to
>read *mail* in a separate window would be very nice).

Imagine being able to read news in one window, mail in another, and play
the game in a third with help files parallel to the active terminal session
-- plus a coding window you can open up for designing your own stuff and
updating it on the MUD. A browser will do all of this with little or no
effort; just do your help system in HTML, run your system's news files as
an NNTP server, your MUDmail system as an IMAP or POP server, stick
sendmail up on the machine... there's a whole lot of functionality you
could handle for your users with simple, easy stuff. Communicator Pro comes
with a 3270 emulator! Let's do a MUD in CICS! :)

Sorry, I get nostalgic for obsolete protocols.

>> and news and all that while I play, without spamming the hell out of my
>> screen. Back and forward are useful there. Someone else could design an
>> add-on product which sat on top of yours, and just run it in a separate
>> frame or window. If I play several games like this, I could fit two or more
>> in the same browser window.
>
>Well, you could always run multiple instances of a client program for the
>same effect. ;)

True, but you could share a lot more code using a single program with
multiple windows.

>Can you anymore add to a client embedded in a webpage than you can
>one which is an application? They'd both just be compiled classes. Unless
>you mean adding other things to the webpage, of course. :)


Aha, but here's the key: a plug-in architecture! Some hooks for people to
write their own add-ons and stick them onto your client! That way, you have
your compiled classes, the third party developers have their compiled
classes, and the user can fire up a scripting host!
 
>!!! The last application I ever tend to run is a web-browser. And then I
>typically use lynx for a few minutes (partly because I don't have enough
>*colours* to run Netscape reasonable due to my video card).

Yeah, you condescending UNIX types always did tend to sniff at the rest of
us for liking color and sound and windows. :P 

Want a better video card? I have several. Mail me your specs, I'll see if I
can do better, and since it's all just junking up my house anyway I'll let
you know what I can do and if you like it we'll see if I can get the thing
mailed out to you free of charge.

>> larger number of people than you realise have their web browsers open all
>> the time *anyway*. I've got three Netscape windows open as we speak. Plus a
>> pair of NetTerm sessions to shell accounts and three MUDs. If I could do
>> all of those in the browser, I would SAVE resources, since the browser
>> would have a significant amount of shared code between windows.
>
>This I'll accept as one point (and another reason why playing the
>'resources' card is iffy, since it varies from user to user).

And operating system to operating system. I tend to be a lot more
conservative running applications under NT Server, a little more
conservative under NT Workstation, and a lot LESS conservative under OS/2.
I still single-task under UNIX, partially because my UNIX knowledge is
incomplete and obsolete so I'm pretty much stuck with 70's era tools there
because they're all I really understand.
 
>It probably averages out; the multimedia aspects of the machine are nearly
>non-existant, because I rebuilt it with Linux in mind, and am not a gamer
>(meaning Doom, et al).

I can help with this, too. I have a GUS MAX sitting around gathering dust,
and I think Linux supports those pretty easily.
 
>A lot of this is already available and useable very simply in Java (one
>reason which contributed to my selecting it). The only thing missing
>currently is sound (not something that really jingles my bells anyway; but
>it might be nice in the future).


? I've used sound in Java before... not like I remember all the details,
but I know I've done it, so it can't be too difficult.
  
>> When I last installed the JDK, I had to manually enter several environment
>> variables and registry keys. It was not something I'd wish on a novice.
>> I've also never had to do that with any piece of software I have ever
>> installed, with the exception of the Gnu Win32 utilities which required a
>> similar setup. (I think it's a UNIX thing. UNIX people seem to have this
>> idea that you should have to prove you're worthy to run their software. So
>> they make you do fifty weird technical things, and if you can manage that
>> then you must know what you're doing.)
>
>I didn't even have to do this with my Linux installation. Unpack, make a
>few symlinks, party.

Of course. You use UNIX. You obviously know what you're doing. Those of us
with WIMP interfaces need to pass a test. :P
  
>> JavaScript is a lot more robust than it used to be. And on the Microsoft
>> front, ASP in particular is an exciting technology. It's starting to look
>> like I may never have to write another CGI script in my life. ;)
>
>I must admit (again) being a bit JScrip ignorant; I've only read snippets
>about it, and can't write it (I only do Java currently). I'm looking into
>it, though. Another book I'd like to buy *sigh*

Sounds like me with Java. I've played with it here and there, but I've been
sort of soured to it by the way Sun's handled it recently. Lately I've
gotten very deep into JavaScript, which is really rather well-done once you
get familiar with it; although I still have some trouble getting working
JavaScript to validate under HTML 4.0, and certain things just never really
work right. CSS complicates things a lot, too.
  
>> >Can't a lot of muds be played single-player (this is an interesting
>> >notion).
>> 
>> Yeah, but they suck. I've tried. ;)
>
>Heh. Roguelike games? ;)

HACK! BWAHAHAHAHA the ultimate game ;>