[MUD-Dev] Re: TECH: Distributed Muds
braddr at puremagic.com
Thu Apr 26 14:08:49 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
<EdNote: Fixed/added attributions>
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:29:08 +0200
Vincent Archer <archer at nevrax.com> wrote:
> According to Bruce:
>> Vincent Archer wrote:
> >> A friend looked at what we were trying to do and said: "it's a
> >> trap". Because you no longer know that objects are now in fact
> >> stored on disk, and not resident in a process memory, you quickly
> > But, in the end, that's something that you're constantly aware of
> > when programming and something that you can monitor easily.
> > Depending on
> Therein lies the trap. You see the whole purpose of OO databases is,
> like most object oriented design, to remove the underlying constraints
> and limits from the view of the programmer.
I think the trap you referred to isn't in the OO db layer, but in the
belief that you can use a set of code without knowing the semantics of it.
I don't care if its libc or libsupperduppercoffeemaker, you need to
understand how it behaves and what the implications of using it are.
The purpose of a database, regardless of its type, is to store data. You
might think of it as removing constraints, but that's incorrect. It might
have different constraints from using a different io facility, but every
mechanism you use will have /some/ constraints.
The same can be said of the user side of things if your mud has a
scripting or programming language. Yes, it can be hard to see what's
going on through many layers of abstraction, but that doesn't absolve the
programmer from having to perform some due dilligence when writing code.
Brad, the lurker
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev