Re: Scripting System..

From: Patrick Dughi (
Date: 12/01/02

> >        Frankly, the inclusion of those preexisting languages would simply
> >set you back even further than just relying on specprocs.  It'd just be
> >neat to do, but god help you if you let anyone use them.
> Perl's "use Safe" was the kind of application I had in mind.
> Writing a language isn't fun.  Adapting an existing one has been done.
> Not as frequently for hostile applications, but still some work there.

        Perl is a nice, stable language.  Even the versions for windows
rarely tend to fail.  All the same, it's a full featured language, and it
doesn't have things like the ability to restrict memory usage, detect
infinite loops, or deny a user the ability to read/write arbitrary files
owned by the mud process owner.  Use safe is a nice idea - you can define
your opcodes to nail each problem function - but you still could have
infinte loops or unnatural resource consumption.

        Really, I think that'd be the worst thing; you don't want to give
your builders the ability to crash the mud.  That's why mud++ used 'sPICO'
- it was your standard PICO with 98% of the commands ripped out because
they allowed too much unsafe interaction with the envrionment.

        We programmers would like perl, or whatever, but we have to depend
on builders who haven't a clue about this stuff to do the work.  I think
we have to rely on a model that assumes hostile envrionments.

        Aside from that, writing languages is fun.  Weren't you the one
who got the lexxer out just a while ago?


        Also, the mechanism for insuring that we don't have name-space
conflicts while at the same time allowing for persistent memory objects,
all in embedded code is difficult.

        I'm sure you wouldn't want a seperate persistent process for each
unique script..

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |
   | Newbie List:   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT