MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: Future of MOO?
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Jackie Hamilton wrote:
> So, I have a few MOOs I run, or would like to run again, etc., and am
> wondering if there's any future in MOO - i.e., will there ever be a
> diskbased version (and I don't mean FUP either), and will it ever offer
> multiple inheritance?
> Or is MOO dead now and I oughta look at something else?
Pavel Curtis et. al. (http://www.placeware.com/) are supposedly developing
what might be called a next-generation MOO. MI isn't really necessary
IMHO; its main benefits can easily be simulated in-db. (Disk-basing can
also be done in-db, but with some difficulty and a lot of overhead.)
The large memory footprint and awkward "thread" system are more serious,
both making it difficult to use MOOs in a broader context. But I think the
real obstacle (to wider acceptance of MOO) is its lack of
sufficient security; the fact that anyone with prog perms can easily
bring down a MOO is enough to require limiting programming access to
small, well-trusted user bases.
I seriously doubt there are any systems out there which are perfect in
all (or even most) respects; if there is one, I'd love to meet it. For now,
the main advantages I would list for MOO over competing systems is its
flexibility, support, familiarity, and suitability for rapid prototyping
(not necessarily in that order). If you really really need disk-basing,
you can always do it with FUP, onc(), or your own server hacks.
Subject Index |