[MUD-Dev] Re: A Small Conceptual Object System For MUDs

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 13 Nov 98, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> Emil Eifrem wrote:
> > At 05:44 PM 11/6/98 , Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> > >I'm striving for a model with few, but meaningful, classes and single
> > >inheritance.
> 
> > My concern with this approach has to do with the single inheritance
> > requirement.  As one of your goals is to "describe the most common MUDs," I
> > think single inheritance with this model can cause problems.  I know many
> > muds out there have banana-keys, flowers that are also wands and edible
> > chairs.  How will you model this without multiple inheritance?
> 
> > An easy answer can be that you don't wish to go into such great detail,
> > another could be to change the requirements.
> 
> Yes. This was a response to Jon Lambert's comment on the difficulty of finding a
> common object model. I belive one should be able to come down to a common object
> model at least on the conceptual level. Maybe you will have to add additional
> constructs below the Item level during implementation to support your
> Banana-key. Still, I think the main challenge is to find some base classes which
> would be acceptable to almost all muds and then find out the most common
> relationships. My preference for single inheritance is motivated by a desire to
> force myself (and others) to think about (or rather rethink) the main
> relationships. It is also motivated by a general dislike for the problems
> associated with multiple inheritance. Of course, your comment does suggest that
> the common object model will have to be fairly abstract in order to remain
> useful for the general mud developer.

You have hit on the exact area I was trying to point out with the difficulties 
of finding a common object model.  The difficulties do not lie necessarily in 
the system being modelled but in the language and terminology used to frame 
the discussion of the model.  This group is too diverse and unwilling to stick 
ANY referents imposed by ANY poster without continually moving them.

For many of the threads here, this continual morphing of the discussion 
framework is wonderful, interesting and wanted.   For certain types of 
threads/discussions it is downright frustrating.  It's like being on a
physics list with posters insisting on changing the law of gravity.  So my 
comments about it being difficult were pointed solely at such a topic being 
discussed on MUD-dev.

Maybe it would easier to come up with a common abstract object model 
for muds by nailing down the referents of discussion in terms of something very 
very object model specific, like Java v1.02.   But then I'd be wrong again 
because someone would invariably want to point out that "by using C++ you 
could ...." thus the moon would fall to earth.

Diversity often breeds cacophany.  :(
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "If you want a picture of the future of man, it is a boot   /*\--
--/*\    in a human face - forever" - George Orwell 1984            /*\--