[sldev] Script compiler - was: Re: Refactoring and development economy

[Felix Duesenburg]

That is great to know! Thank you for the reassurance.

So, for the time being you won't get switch/case for LSL then. Or 
regular expressions. Or arrays. Or condensed storage for keys.

Doesn't matter, there is enough other exciting stuff to work on, should 
be glad to strike off a few items from my list :)

Anyway, I hope LL will stick with another statement made earlier, that 
LSL is not going to die. I think a lot of people have grown to like it, 
even if one may think that there are enough different programming 
languages in the world. Content creators in SL who never programmed 
before found it easy to learn. And those who know other languages found 
the state based approach quite unusual and highly suitable for the 
purpose. Someone has done a great job inventing this. So we'll see what 
the future brings, and indeed, 'LSL3' is just the term I had in mind. :)

Cheers,
Felix


Jim Purbrick (Babbage) wrote:
> The plan is to move to server side compilation in the short term so 
> that we can be sure that LSL bytecode we are executing is the output 
> of the LSL compiler and not just arbitrary bytes or carefully crafted 
> LSO files designed to exploit some weakness in the LSL runtime.
>
> The LSL compiler used by the asset upload framework is exactly the 
> same code that is used in the current viewer compiler, so we can 
> accept patches, but personally I would far rather see us move to allow 
> other .NET languages than spend time patching and extending LSL.
>
> In the long term I'd like to be able to accept arbitrary CLI 
> assemblies that we can verify and trust to run in the server sandbox. 
> This requires significant hardening of the simulator script sandbox 
> and we'd have to put a lot of faith in Mono's nascent verifier, but I 
> think it's a compelling endgame: use any language that targets the CLI 
> to script SL along with the tools and debugging facilities you get 
> with that language. Or invent your own. and call it LSL3 if you must ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
> Felix Duesenburg wrote:
>> Tateru Nino wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The script compiler isn't really staying. There's the old LSL 
>>> compiler which might stay in the viewer (or move to the sim, not 
>>> sure about that yet) and the mono compiler which definitely isn't 
>>> going into the viewer last we heard.
>>>
>>
>> I keep hearing that, too, but so far it seems all rumours and nothing 
>> conclusive. Can you cite sources? It's a difficult keyword to search 
>> for, too many results. (To everybody: With things like that, always, 
>> ALWAYS make proper citations with sources, please.)
>>
>> Because if that was so, I'd immediately stop all work with the script 
>> compiler that I'm currently doing. But I've been in contact with 
>> Lindens about a sandbox where to test my stuff should things go 
>> wrong, and noone tried to discourage me. There are various JIRAs with 
>> feature requests for LSL, but no Linden is answering there saying 
>> that it's all going to be futile. I know that the current script 
>> compiler's days are numbered, but features can be ported. If it was 
>> to be taken away completely though, that would hurt.
>>
>> It would be good if we could have a statement from the horse's mouth, 
>> saying it's either this way or that way to stop these rumours. Or a 
>> pointer if we missed it. At the moment it feels rather uneasy indeed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Felix
>> _______________________________________________
>> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
>> /index.html
>