Re: MUD system -> MUD system conversion...

• Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:40:57 PST
• From:
  ThwartedEfforts <abakun@scinc.com>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:56 AM 3/15/96 PST, you wrote:
>> What is dumped would not have much depth, but it would get 90% of the 
>> grunt work converted to a db, if somebody wanted to convert.
>> 
>So what you are saying, is that this would be a generic Architectural
>Language, that could then be translated into any compatible M* design.
>and would lay out the basic architecture, for later fleshing out?

Exactly what I got from Brandon's post.

>Sort of like a Map of a city, in the City Planners Office, it indicates
>the nature of the city, yet still has to be built out.....
>
>I like the concept..... Although how you would describe the "toilets that
>really clog" so that it could get transfered from one M* system to another

Er, you don't.  It's not susposed to allow you to move code over, only the
topology.

>is going to be a problem. Perhaps, you could outline the nature of the
>verbs, and properties, in some manner. Problem is that the Metaphor of
>the object, is realy only about 10% of its implimentation. 

>Still if you like empty streets, and quiet buildings, I suppose it's a
>valid approach. We could then have Environmental Artists, publishing in

That's not the point.  The point is that you can easily move the stuff that
is hard to move, the rooms and such, which usually have to be created by hand.
It's not a substitute for programming.

>Why am I not excited by the idea?

Because you don't understand it.

I suspect that Brandon has other purposes in mind (like getting people to
easily switch over to Cold/Genesis :) :) :) :) )

Andy

• Prev: Re: MUD system -> MUD system conversion...
• Next: Re: MUD system -> MUD system conversion...
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows