[MUD-Dev] UML/Commercial v Free Muds

[Nathan F Yospe]

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Greg Munt wrote:

:Has anyone used UML here? Advantages/disadvantages? I'm thinking of using 
:it to help with the design of my project, having been introduced to it 
:through Rational Rose.

Yes. UML is OK, not insanely great... Rational Rose, on the other hand, has
to be the worst piece of commercial software I have ever seen, bar none. In
fact, I almost find myself distrusting UML on the off chance Rational wrote
Rose using it. I know they didn't... Rose was obviously put together as the
first effort by a team of 70s Cobol programmers just retrained in C++. That
doesn't change the fact that association taints UML. Just my opinion, after
using Rose for the last two and a half months.

:Also. Someone (John Adelsberger, I think - what a nice man) commented 
:that the development effort that goes into free software (he was 
:referring to gcc, I think) is incomparable to that of commercial software..

:My experience of the commerical software development industry is: "If 
:it works, who cares beyond that?"

Obviously the philosophy over at Rational, save the exact definition of the
first part. No, this is not universal. Yes, it is overly prevailant. One of
the most popular operating systems in the world is proof positive.

:I was wondering, since there a lot of commercial/professional mud ppl on 
:this list, what you lot thought about it, when mapped into the mudding 
:world...?

:What do you think of the assertion that, since in a commercial 
:environment, you have to get something out by a particular time, and 
:that, so long as the desired functionality is provided, the customer is 
:happy, then less attention is given to producing a quality product, than 
:might be given to something produced through a free community? There is 
:also the thousands of testers available for free products (on the 
:internet) to be considered, also.

I think you also have to take into account the customer. Most crap products
(Like Rose) get sold to corporations, and to PHBs in particular, instead of
to discriminating customers who will actually use the damned thing. This is
a case-of-lowest-bidder situation as often as not, and is really bad. There
isn't anything to be gained by pinching pennies and pissing pounds... which
is exactly what that sort of attitude relies on. Here, muds are a different
case. A good friend of mine, and the most avid gamer of the lot, bought UOL
when it came out. He tried it, quite critically, as he generally does, with
that first week or two... then he returned it, citing a list of complaints.
(Raph, if you want the list, I'll gladly forward it. He won't mind, I know.
BTW, this is _my_ critical concept testor, and I consider him an invaluable
resource.)

:Using a current example - databases - how do things like DB2 and Oracle 
:compare to products listed in the FreeDB list? Is it a case of high 
:levels of development/support (in the free industry), versus lots of 
:money to put into a product (in the commercial industry? Which side comes 
:out better? (Is this an unanswerable question, perhaps depending on context?)

My experience with Oracle (admittedly sheltered by the Roguewave tools that
I use) has been quite good... and watching the guys in the next cubicle set
use Developer 2000, and build the database system, I can't say there's much
to complain about. (unlike this bastard of an OOD/CASE tool... Damned Rose)
That said, I haven't given the other databases a fair chance. I really have
no need for that sort of database for my muds. Completely different system.
Well, aside from that object reference table. But that isn't quite the same
concept as a storage database. What I can say is this: I have seen a lot of
bad stuff done in certain commercial operating systems, including ones that
are shipped by JCL's last three employers... nothing compared to a certain,
shall we say, monopoly in denial, but still... enough to make me think that
Linux isn't _that_ bad, especially given that it's free.

:"My ambition is surpassed only by my egotism."

Oh? I'll bet mine surpasses yours. (Take your pick on my _what_. It's still
the same statement.)
--

Nathan F. Yospe - Aimed High, Crashed Hard, In the Hanger, Back Flying Soon
Jr Software Engineer, Textron Systems Division (On loan to Rocketdyne Tech)
(Temporarily on Hold) Student, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Physics Dept.
yospe#hawaii.edu nyospe#premier.mhpcc.af.mil http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe/