Let's talk about Mono/.Net

LL will have to build in some form of support for using these additional languages, correct? The script code is executed on their servers, so the compiled code has to get to their servers.

I'm not sure I am expressing myself well here, in simple terms, there will need to be a choice in the interface to select what language to use, isn't that right?

Yes, LL would have to provide support for having the script compiled using a particular compiler (the vb compiler or the C# compiler). Compilation happens on their servers, not locally. Once they support multiple languages, it will probably be just a matter of choosing which compiler to use - or putting in something that specifies the language right in the script so that it chooses the correct compiler.

He does have a valid point - LSL is a strange programming language and confusing for some- having more options, including Basic, which is easier for some people to get their minds around, is not a bad thing - it can only help to increase access to programming in SL, which is a good thing.

That is rather unfair.... nowhere did I say that a completely new simple interface should be designed specifically for me, rather that things would need to be changed if I ever had any hope of getting to grips with it.

If I never get to grips with LSL.... so be it, theres plenty of other things to occupy my time in game.

Lewis

I'm not so sure...... instead of moving something to x,y its moving to x,y,z.

I don't have a problem working in 3D - or the maths particularly involved (although quite why they use quats instead of degrees I don't understand) - its just getting the commands I need to do what I want them to.

Lewis

Why would anyone be optimistic about getting a choice of languages when and if Mono gets put into action?

Suppose it gets put on the list of things to do somewhere after Havoc2, and trouble free sim crossings, and for in the name of all that's holy being able to reliably display avatars, and not having inventory items vanish, and not having objects shift position for no good reason, and having the Cut field in the object editor work in a sensible way?

The reason I would be optimistic about it is these language compilers already exist - LL would not be writing them. How they would be integrated, I am not exactly sure as I don't know the intricacies or limitations of Mono, but again, my optimism is not dampened by past missteps. Perhaps it should be, but I am looking forward to this feature in the future. Of course, I was looking forward to the promised HTML release in 1.7...

The language that you understand that is called Basic is a lot different from the language that you would be writing called Basic that was working with a state-driven real-time control system.

I have designed and implemented real-time languages, for the Cosmac 1802 and the 8085. These microprocessors have four times the address space that's allocated to an LSL script, so the requirements are similar. There's no way to get rid of the state-driven language and have something that's usable for a real-time environment.

Good for you, that's how I learned programming.

I don't have a degree in anything.

To prevent gimbal lock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock

I agree with Lewis. It is not the complexity of 3d math that is holding people back with LSL (since its math functionality is hardly stellar) - it is the screwy syntax, lack of basic language structures and data types (such as arrays, hashtables, etc..), and the odd state paradigm it uses, along with an unflexible pseudo-event system. Those used to object oriented programming are stuck with this throwback hobbled scripting language, and those who have never programmed or have limited background in it are stuck learning a quirky language that has no use outside of SL and does not follow many of the standard rules of programming.

I would love to see programming in SL become more accesible on different levels - you don't need to know how to manipulate quarternions to make something give you a notecard, yet the functionality for that is not as straightforward as it could be and is out of the reach of a lot of people. I would love to see tools emerge in SL eventually that can hide some of the complexity. An example that comes to mind is Dreamweaver, which has a great system of adding interactivity without writing any Javascript yourself. You choose from a list when something happens (button is clicked on), and you choose what should happen (property is changed, message pops up, etc..). Nothing precludes you from doing the code yourself, but it makes it more accessible to those who don't have a full programming background.

When you enter llMoveTotarget in the editing window, and hover the mouse over it, up comes llMoveToTarget(vector target, float tau)

However, yes, it would be really nice if the pulldown would insert a template for the command. That's a great idea, and so is some kind of real-time syntax checking (IF you can turn it off), and better error feedback.

I'd support proposals like that because I agree, the editor is confusing and the documentation is limited (and all too often has to be put together by volunteers).

But... you've confused me, 'cos none of that has anything to do with whether it's like Basic or not.

I have suffered that a few times, but the medication does work quite effectively.

Lewis

I'm not a big fan of C# either. What does C# have to do with it? LSL is a higher level (albeit more limited) language.

And if LSL was based on any Basic derivitive I'd have a counter going up for every time I had to use whatever the end-of-line-continuation character for that Basic was, and I'd long since have ripped THAT character off the keyboard and shoved it... well, let's not go there.

It's real common in the real-time industry. LSL states are also similar to the patterns in AWK or LEX or transitions in YACC.

Amen. There are more important issues to discuss. Namely, the 2.0 editor must be vi, because emacs is teh sux0r!

You're so old fashioned Jarod. Everybody uses vim now. k thxbye

Mono making possible the use of .Net based languages does not mean that we get the nice user interfaces with drag and drop controls and buttons like one finds in Visual Basic or other RAD language packages, does it?

It just means we would get to use a language with some of the syntax and fundamental elements like arrays, records, pointers, methods, etc.

That word "just" sounds a bit silly followed by the nice things it is referring to, but I want to make sure that people aren't hoping for way more than they can really expect to get.

We would not, for instance, get a prim onto which we could enter a number, like a VB textbox, nor a prim that would display text like a label.

That's right, Suezy!. Just the syntax only. I wasn't expecting more. But anyway, I'm sure that by the time it shows up in Second Life, I'll be placing semicolons at the end of Visual Basic lines and cursing the designers of VB.

A long time ago I fiddled with Turbo Pascal a lot and at some point I started ending sentences in normal English writing with semicolons.

Incidentally, everbody's favorite company Microsoft has free VB and C# compilers available, those who like fiddling might want to download them just to play with.

Yes, the Express editions of Visual C#, Visual Basic, and Visual Web Developer are all very nice - you can also just download the .net framework and compile your scripts from the command line if you are more hardcore and don't want a shiny ide.