From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2006-11-25T11:52:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language

Tony Belding wrote:
> I'm interested in using an off-the-shelf interpreted language as a 
> user-accessible scripting language for a MUCK.  I'm just not sure if I 
> can find one that does everything I need.  The MUCK must be able to 
> call the interpreter and execute scripts with it, but the interpreter 
> must also be able to call functions in the MUCK code.  And then 
> there's 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 scripts that access the console, access the filesystem or 
> sockets directly, or call libraries or other binaries outside the MUCK.
>
> Is this practical?  I'm thinking of Ruby or Python for this, if they 
> can meet the requirements.
>
> I might even consider REXX. . .  I remember ARexx from my Amiga days, 
> and how great it was for string manipulation and application 
> scripting. However. . .  My immediate target platform, Mac OS X, comes 
> with Ruby and Python but not REXX, so that's a disadvantage.
>
> 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.
>
1. What is a MUCK? Multi-User ??

2. There are open source REXX tool sets around. Try

http://regina-rexx.sourceforge.net

-- 

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.