[MUD-Dev] java clients

Christopher Kohnert chris at achaea.com
Mon Nov 10 19:03:20 New Zealand Daylight Time 2003

On Nov 8, 2003, at 6:55 AM, ceo wrote:
> Alex Chacha wrote:

>> All this from a simple java 1.1 compliant client, I fear making
>> it any more complex.

> IMHO and IME that's often because of your 1.1 compliance.


> If you want to develop and deliver java clients, the story is
> simple - tell your uses to get the current version of java!
> Frankly, I find the widespread obsession with 1.1 compliance
> rather strange - it doesn't even have basic data structures like
> List!

> I'm impressed at people's masochism in choosing to code in such a
> barren landscape :P...

Hey, we work with what we've got. Java client developers would love
nothing more than to have a stable, working, featureful version of
Java on every user's machine. The reality is that most users don't,
and we've got to code to the lowest common denominator in order to
keep the barrier of entry low (in a medium that is already pretty
high). Even WebStart, which is what the initial java release should
have been, is annoyingly difficult to get users to use.

> (although, as I said earlier, I do recognize there are situations
> where 1.1 compliance remains a necessity; there may be some areas
> where upgrading your JVM is truly impossible. Mostly, though,
> developers tell themselves it's impossible when it's merely
> slightly undesirable. Downloads of technologies over the past
> decade have proven time and again that if your content is
> compelling, people will download. e.g. dialup users still download
> 30-50Mb regularly if they have an nVidia grahpics card...).

If users wanted new and working Java, this wouldn't be an issue. ;)
The fact is, they don't care enough about it to download and install
it (for the most part), and convincing them otherwise is pretty damn

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

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list