[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: byte based quota

- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 19:45:24 PST
- From:
- cc: tom@mvision.com, moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Length: 1380
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <9510302309.AA53945@dept.english.upenn.edu>

    On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Susan Garfinkel wrote:

    > perhaps i'm in the minority, but i prefer the object based quota for a new
    > moo, especially if the switchover is easy. my reasoning is that we want to
    > encourage people to make full use of the potential of an object-oriented
    > environment, and one object that's fully described (@chparented, messages
    > customized, etc.) and does some neat stuff (people have a reason to learn
    > programming) is better than 10 objects that we all affectionately refer to
    > as "tiny scenery". you know, if it doesn't do anything, it doesn't need
    > to be a separate object... i guess it depends on your goals for the moo,
    > if you want to encourage rich texture or if anything goes as long as it
    > doesn't get too big. perhaps the ideal solution is to put a cap on both
    > number of objects, and total byte size.

    I think that a Byte Quota system actually encourages OO development, on
    the fact that if they are limited to X number of objects, and they want
    more stuff, things like metarooms and other objects that simulate
    multiple objects develop.  If you want a pure OO system, yet still have a
    quota, you'd let players create as many objects as they want, each with
    their own descriptions etc, but yet still be controled by the total size
    of their objects.  The more objects, the more OO it is.

    my $0.02 worth

    -Colin  (Angreal MOO)

References:

- Re: byte based quota

- From: sgarfink@dept.english.upenn.edu (Susan Garfinkel)

- Prev: Re: byte based quota
- Next: Re: byte based quota
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index