From: Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@...>
Date: 2006-11-25T10:50:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:11:21 -0600, Tony Belding <zobeid@techie.com>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

> the security issue that really worries me. . .  I have to be able to 
> limit what the interpreter can execute.  I can't have my users running 

	That is going to be the killer... Python no-longer ships with a
"secure sandbox" module, because there were always ways to work around
it.

> 
> My final option would be to create my own language interpeter where I 
> have control over everything that happens.  That is what MUCKs have 
> always done in the past.  But the result was always quirky, limited 
> languages like MUF (Multi-User Forth) which really turn off a lot of 
> coders.  Furthermore, I've never created a language before, and it 
> would be a lot of extra work for me.

	As I recall, the FuzzBall server required users to be vetted for MUF
programming privileges, because it too could not be made secure --
practically all objects within the MUCK involved MUF. Users could access
pre-made routines via normal command entries, but could not code at the
MUF level. FurryMUCK and FurToonia both implemented MPI as a general
user level scripting language. MPI is sort of a LISPy language; as it
was implemented "within" the MUF world (even though it /is/ C source),
it was possible to make it secure -- but it is not a stand-alone
language, even within it one is invoking the prebuilt MUF subroutines.

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bolo/shipyard/mpintro1.html
-- 
	Wulfraed	Dennis Lee Bieber		KD6MOG
	wlfraed@ix.netcom.com		wulfraed@bestiaria.com
		HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
	(Bestiaria Support Staff:		web-asst@bestiaria.com)
		HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/