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

[J Ross Nicoll]

While LSL as a language is a good start, there's some features it  
could really do with. Like maps, functions local to states, error  
handling (in try-catch style), the ability to provide and use function  
libraries, and persistent storage, off the top of my head. Being able  
to do revision control using an external SVN repository would also be  
really useful, while I'm ranting/making a wishlist. Being able to do  
useful things in case of notecard lines over 255 chars in length (not  
to mention, why do I have to request each line individually rather  
than saying "Spool the entire notecard to me"), event queue overflow,  
more than 16 people in scan range, etc. would also be fantastic. Oh,  
and having animation perms on more than one person at a time, per  
script, being able to stop an animation we start if the animation is  
removed from inventory...

In short, I'm not too attached to LSL as is.

On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:54, Felix Duesenburg wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html

The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland : No  
SC013532



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2437 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080422/9e4a10eb/smime.bin