[MUD-Dev] Clients based on Netscape 5?

[Vadim Tkachenko]

Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

> Vadim Tkachenko wrote:

[skipped]

> So you don't consider Java just as proprietary as NSAPI and ASP, even though Sun has
> repeatedly lied and cheated in its presentation of the technology?

Let's not make it yet another religious war, OK? My personal opinion (please don't comment
on it, just acknowledge): I didn't pay attention to Sun's words (because I don't listen to
them), I've been considering the deeds. As a result of those deeds, I have _free_ JDK 1.1.3
on _free_ Linux platform with all _free_ stuff I care about.

> And what exactly do you mean, all *decent* servers? Please.

Let's subset to those I pay attention to: 1) Apache (free and good) 2) Netscape (my company
relies on it) 3) JavaServer (hadn't played with it yet, but given my direction of mind,
will definitely). I believe, three is more than enough - not as a flamebite, but just to
extend my area of knowledge - can you point me out to anything which can't be done with
those above? I know (suspect?) that NSAPI isn't for Apache nor JavaServer, what else?

> > which gives you even more platform
> > independency than the solutions you've mentioned.
>
> Well, considering I was trying to come up with solutions that would be more feasible
> with the release of the Netscape source, I don't think platform-independence had any
> place in the list.

Not so for me - see, I'm a UNIX freak in a Windows world, and it takes a lot to produce the
Windows-targeted products (commercial quality) on a UNIX (Linux ;-) platform :-) So I have
to care about that :-)

> > > This is all off the top of my head, of course, and while a lot of people might
> > > wonder what the hell I'm thinking by saying that we could actually use
> > > JavaScript as a MUD scripting language,
> >
> > Don't you think it's too unstable for a complicated solutions? Every Javascript app
> > I've seen so far is way too flaky...
>
> Most of the flakiness around JavaScript seems due to the vagaries of the HTTP protocol.
> JavaScript tries to run immediately, without waiting for the rest of the page to
> load... which spells disaster a lot of the time. I think that was a BAD decision; at
> the very least, it should wait for the rest of the current document to load. I don't
> think it's as noticable if you're sitting on a leased line, which of course is
> something which plagues development... the developers go 'works fine over here!', and
> neglect to realise that maybe perhaps that dual-processor PPro 200 with 128 megs of RAM
> and a TSU on his desktop might make a difference.

I take your word for it because I've never dealt with Javascript - just pure Java

> Not to mention a lot of JavaScript I've seen is done by non-programmers, and it shows.
> Were your first dozen or so C programs any better? ;)

Sure not :-)

> True enough. In which case, write a C compiler. Any decent CompSci graduate,
> incidentally, already has. ;>

Not me :-) See, my grade was in hardware, not software :-)

> > PS: This is a first message I'm writing from Netscape 4.04 for Win95, and the
> > quoting style looks weird - can someone drop me a note if it looks weird for you
> > too?
>
> It looks weird, works wrong, and pisses me off. Feel better? ;)

Yes, because I see the quoting from your side as usual, which means that fancy blue line at
the left of the quoted text is just a Netscape's way to display the quote :-)

> =+[caliban at darklock.com]=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=[http://www.darklock.com/]+=

--vt