[MUD-Dev] Java and Javascript

[Sauron]

Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> 
> On 27 Feb 98 at 0:03, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
> > On 08:41 PM 2/26/98 +0000, I personally witnessed Jon A. Lambert
> > jumping up to say:
> >

[snip]

> > >I don't like my cards getting eaten and
> > >crawling around in the machine to find them.  What I'm trying to say
> > >is that what I really, really want (Uh) is a zig-a-zig ha.
> >
> > "HE WHO CONTROLS THE SPICE... CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE!!!!!"
> >
> > Sorry, I just watched Dune again yesterday. ;)
> >
> 
> Hmm, Perhaps there's something deeper to these inter-galactic
> trollops than I had originally thought.  Who are they and what do
> THEY want?  Is the hidden agenda behind this "girl-power" really a
> major move on the spice market?

They are all Bene Gesserit witches trying to breed another Kwisatz
Haderach! Run for your lives! Help me Leto Atreides, Help me!
 
> > <sudden jump to being on topic> This fits in relatively well with
> > the concept of interfaces for MUDs. Some people want the engine to
> > have common sense. Some people don't. For example, in your average
> > program, the autotype and such shouldn't happen unless you turn it
> > on, and when you do have it turned on you should be able to frob
> > lots of settings to make it work like you want it to. What I see in
> > most MUDs is an entirely incorrect assumption that the interface
> > which makes sense to the programmer is the interface which makes
> > sense. The climate of the internet, as many people have noted
> > recently, is very different; when MUSHes and MUDs were first getting
> > to be popular on the net, you could assume with reasonable accuracy
> > that anyone on the internet was a programmer or at least a college
> > student with some programming aspirations and ability. You could
> > further assume that the user who was logging onto a MUD was not only
> > familiar with but probably *expert* at Dungeons and Dragons, which
> > was pretty much the only game in town (no pun intended) at the time.
> > So even if your game system bore no resemblance whatsoever to D&D,
> > you could explain it in D&D style terms and reasonably expect to be
> > understood.
> >
> 
>      I think a good interface will expose a button or keystroke that
> will attempt an action using the most likely intended action or
> default parameters.
>      At a secondary level, the button or key-sequence will expose its
> properties to the user to twiddle and tweak.  Even allowing the user
> to set those up as defaults for that operation or allow the user to
> clone/map the newly defined operation to a new button or key-sequence.
> 
>      At an even deeper level a good interface will have a macro or
> script language to program multiple clicks or key-sequences
> (operations) using conditionals and looping constructs.  These may
> also be mapped to buttons or key-sequences.  This client language
> should be aware of its host environment to some extent.  This would
> mean that something like JavaScript's or VBScript's awareness of the
> host browser would be ideal.  Or WordBasic's awareness of the Word
> environment.   The mud client language should be aware of the mud
> client as a host and nothing outside of that sandbox.

Just a side note, this is all fine and dandy for someone with some
familiarity with a scripting language, however, what about all the
Joe-shmoos out there who wouldn't have a clue where to begin? It may be
possible to create some standard distributable scripts to give them,
however, I really do prefer the idea of using some sort of language
server-side that was linked to a specific user/char (I love the MushCode
idea, I find it much more useful and easier to use the VBScript).
 
> I just got a new copy of MushClient, I was using an older version that
> did not have the client language additions.  So I'll give it a look
> see.

I have the latest version of MushClient and I have not yet once found a
real need for scripts with it.
 
> > Nowadays, there are hundreds of game systems, many of which are
> > nothing like D&D. The internet is available to nearly anyone,
> > anywhere, regardless of educational background or computer literacy.
> > It should be obvious that the interface of MUDs will need to change
> > drastically in order to accommodate these users, or the MUD
> > community will slowly die. And therein lies the rub -- not only do
> > the new players need to be accommodated with easier interfaces, but
> > the old school players need to be accommodated with
> > *powerful* interfaces. And striking that balance is difficult. Obviously,
> > the direction of MUD interfaces needs to change, but the real
> > question is
> > *how* it needs to change.

I believe that some type of scalability (if it really exists) needs to
be incorporated with any interface. Provide a simple default setup
(certain macros preprogrammed, common buttons layed out) with a language
that allows for simple modifications to be done easily AND provide for
reprogramming the interface. In the age of todays internet, you'll
probably want to lean 
towards the easy to use side, as it was said above, it's no longer
programmers and computer experts.
 
> I don't see this as too much of a problem here on this list.  There
> seems to be a strong desire here to throw away or modify many of
> its abstractions.  Of course we all have different areas of game
> interest.  You know, the 'suit of cards' thingy.
> 
> --
> --/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
> --/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
> --/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--

-Sauron