Nick Gammon said:
However as you note, performance isn't everything. There are claims MUSHclient is hard to use, and I can't really comment as I am used to it now. I try to make it simple and consistent, but perhaps I don't totally succeed.
As a basic user, I found Mudlet a little easier to use - there was a single row of large buttons, and pressing the first one ("Connect") allowed me to enter connection details and start playing. With MUSHclient I had to go to File->New World, which I found less intuitive. Like most users, I didn't bother reading any instructions, I just jumped straight in and started blundering around.
When it came to writing scripts, I gave up with Mudlet. I've seen some nice screenshots of what can be done, but I find their editor really uncomfortable to use, the documentation is pretty sparse, their graphical functionality is limited (eg I have to provide 1024 individual graphical terrain tiles, as opposed to a single terrain strip like I do in MUSHclient) and they don't support open protocols (so I had to hack together psuedo-ATCP support in order to trick Mudlet into reading MSDP data - which I've just discovered causes some strange side effects for CMUD users).
In terms of performance I've not noticed any difference between the two - both run nice and fast, and appear very stable. I've have had a few usage problems with Mudlet (vanishing text and session freezes), but as nobody else has reported them they're probably due to my "experiments" with psuedo-ATCP.
The main reason I'm interested in Mudlet is because of its cross-platform support. I know MUSHclient can be run under WINE and such, but as far as I know, none of the players who have tried have managed to get my plugin working. For first-time mudders, I really want to provide them something that's as easy as possible to get started with (although it looks like the PHudBase browser client might be a simpler option here, as it doesn't require any downloads).