# Future of MOO?

Michael Brundage (brundage@laurel.ipac.caltech.edu)
Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:24:46 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Jackie Hamilton wrote:
    > So, I have a few MOOs I run, or would like to run again, etc., and am
    > wondering if there's any future in MOO - i.e., will there ever be a
    > diskbased version (and I don't mean FUP either), and will it ever offer
    > multiple inheritance?
    >
    > Or is MOO dead now and I oughta look at something else?

    Pavel Curtis et. al. (http://www.placeware.com/) are supposedly developing
    what might be called a next-generation MOO. MI isn't really necessary
    IMHO; its main benefits can easily be simulated in-db.  (Disk-basing can
    also be done in-db, but with some difficulty and a lot of overhead.)
    The large memory footprint and awkward "thread" system are more serious,
    both making it difficult to use MOOs in a broader context.  But I think the
    real obstacle (to wider acceptance of MOO) is its lack of
    sufficient security; the fact that anyone with prog perms can easily
    bring down a MOO is enough to require limiting programming access to
    small, well-trusted user bases.

    I seriously doubt there are any systems out there which are perfect in
    all (or even most) respects; if there is one, I'd love to meet it.  For now,
    the main advantages I would list for MOO over competing systems is its
    flexibility, support, familiarity, and suitability for rapid prototyping
    (not necessarily in that order).  If you really really need disk-basing,
    you can always do it with FUP, onc(), or your own server hacks.

    Cheers,

    michael
    brundage@ipac.caltech.edu