Re: Future of MOO?

• Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:24:46 PST
• From:
  Michael Brundage <brundage@laurel.ipac.caltech.edu>
• cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.970227140129.1631B-100000@pentagon.io.com>

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.


Cheers,

michael
brundage@ipac.caltech.edu

• Future of MOO?
• From: Jackie Hamilton <kira@io.com>

• Prev: Re: Future of MOO?
• Next: Re: Future of MOO?
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows