On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Cervo wrote:
>Now after reading this thread, it seems to me as if there is some
>confusion going on. It looks to me as if some people are confusing JAVA
>and JavaScript. I wonder if it is even possible to build a mud in
>JavaScript :) Personally I've never played with JavaScript, but if
>making a mud is possible in java script it would be hilarious.
Client-side JavaScript MUD would be hilarious. Server-side JavaScript MUD
would be scary.
>1. First thing is that many people don't know how to make linked
>lists/pointers---Java provides a Vector Class.(Also in C++)
I'll take the time to plug GLIB again here.
It implements many basic structures. The way of making a function to
iterate over a list (callback) may take some getting used to though.
>2. Java will compile/execute anywhere. No more of these stupid Cygwin
>threads....Clean up circle mailing list spam with "My circlemud won't
>compile" messages :)
To be replaced by "my MUD crashes Netscape" all the time. I don't think
the Java compilers are free on Windows yet, are they? I know Cygnus is
releasing a Java compiler in the next release of GCC.
>3. Sockets as well as many other things are much easier to use in java and
>require much less code
Shouldn't matter with the right abstraction. Not saying it isn't useful
(since it's a pain to get the right abstraction), but that it is only a
minor gain.
>4. Better organization and encapsulation(Also in C++)
You can have good organization and encapsulation in BASIC if you want to
take the time to do it. I'd have to say that my original BASIC programming
wasn't very structured but QuickBASIC made that a bit easier to do.
>5. Tons more features than C that are portable, like sound, graphics,
>etc.(well not really portable, but java is written in assembly for every
>platform it is ported to, so it appears portable enough)...How do these
>apply to a mud, I have know idea :P But I'm sure there are some features
>that will be useful to someone
For those wishing to go that far it is.
>The Disadvantages of Java...
>1. No explicit way of freeing memory (BIG Disadvantage)
Not always, but does tend to result in larger memory footprint when doing
major memory work. I think someone ran stock (?) CircleMUD under a garbage
collector and it wasn't too bad, about 10% larger after a brief balloon
period during loading.
>2. Slower than C/C++
MUDs aren't very speedy anyway. 1-5% processor, depending on additions.
>3. Currently in between jdk 1.0 and 1.2(2.0 now). Jdk 2.0 is not out
>for most operating systems, and if Sun doesn't do something about it,
>java is doomed
I'm more interested in the Cygnus compiler personally.
>4. CircleMud would probably have to be rewritten from scratch
Might do that anyway.
>Although basically who cares, I just wanted to make sure people weren't
>saying Java and JavaScript are the same language.
LiveScript is a much better name for it.
>I can't believe people took that seriously *grin*
I would hope the absurdity would strike them.
--
George Greer | My beta stuff and related information.
greerga@circlemud.org | http://www.circlemud.org/~greerga/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST