[MUD-Dev] Web vs. Java client

Christopher Allen ChristopherA at skotos.net
Fri Oct 24 18:55:45 New Zealand Daylight Time 2003

Baar - Lord of the Seven Suns wrote:

> You know, once upon a time I would have agreed. After having seen
> Iron Realms' Java client (latest version used on Achaea
> <http:/www.achaea.com/> develop over the past two years and seeing
> how many sites won't work on my Mac's IE or Safari browsers, I now
> disagree. For client software for a Mud I'd have to say that Java
> is an excellent choice so long as you are paying attention to
> making sure it works on multiple platforms. What you are saying
> is, the customer can choose the OS but the developer will choose
> the browser, I'd rather have the choice of my own on both accounts
> and Java will do this far easier than Javascript in my experience.

I would have said the same thing, but Mozilla's user interface is
apparently written in Javascript, and thus when we wrote a client
using that it ended up being easier, nore capable, and smaller, then
our Java client. The fact that Mozilla (and its derivatives) are on
so many platforms, it means that it also is the most reliable client
for all the non-Windows platforms. In addition, it has been so much
easier to add features to, that someday we may have our current
top-of-the-line ActiveX client become an "entry-level" client and
ask our users who want fancier client features to use

-- Christopher Allen
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list