[MUD-Dev] Web vs. Java client(?)

[Eric Merritt]

--- Joshua Judson Rosen <rozzin at geekspace.com> wrote:

> Er..., let's back up a bit: what's the point of this thread? What
> do you want, a single cross-platform codebase?

Thats exactly what mozilla/xul provides.

> We're talking about minimising download-hassle for the users?

That seemed to be one of the arguments against the use of mozilla.

> Why don't you just put everything needed into native executables?
> There are plenty of cross-platform graphics- and
> networking-toolkits and languages from which the toolkits can be
> used--Qt, wxWindows, GTK+, and Tk are all cross-platform toolkits;
> there's OpenGL for 3-D, if you want that; Python, Perl, C++, and
> Java all have options to produce native executables.

It depends on what you mean by native executables. If you imply that
you can build *.exe files with the above then that is true. However,
niether python nor perl will actually compile to native code.

> Why can't you just pick one of those languages, pair it with one
> of those toolkits, write your client, publish a set of
> single-download native executables, and be done with it?

One thing that you may have missed. At the begining of this
discussion some one offered an already developed mud client based on
Mozilla. We were discussing the relative merits of using this
pre-existing codebase. I don't believe we were talking about
creating something from scratch. Of course, although on the java
side, that would be the case.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev