Wanted: your top 5 ways to improve scripting

What are you trying to hide from your customers?

Some way of transferring data between unlinked objects without resorting to string manipulation.
Ability to set and get a variable on an object directly, that is, remotely.
Object IM or any ability to communicate far away.
Ability to directly access an object via a pointer.
Ability to call methods in an object without sending messages all over the place.

it was made aparent today, that our server The Forest, went down for the whole weekend. this was in part to what i believe was my doing, as i was making a new script for object generation.

never the less, one script had the power to kill off a main reason that i visit secondlife.
after a town meeting today on the subject, i believe sandboxing and scripting is a main facit of this application, and should not banish people to the lindin sandboxes to do their work.

i enjoy making things around others, and it gives others somthing to enjoy. it is the way of entertainment currently, baring the 'movie' function, whihc really is no longer interpersonal interaction anyway.

MY PROPOSAL:

create a module in each server called 'sandbox area'.
this module can consist of a certain player decided area, and may have perminent objects in it.
'sandbox' will follow a diffrent set of rules then the rest of the server. and since it is a small area, when it crashes it will be designed to just reset and create the perminent objects that were in it upon last backup.
it will become a 'no entry' zone when it crashes, and while it reboots.
the rest of the server can have a different set of rules, disalowing scripting or whatever and even generate a popup that says 'no blah in this area, please go here <x,y>'
this way we can have alot more control over a given server, make things small er and faster.

***most importantly, i can make stuff around my friends in an area i like to be.***

thank you for listening
--
Kae Fox

Look to the way that MOO does this permission. Functions are called verbs in MOOcode. When I came across Second Life last week, it struck me how much like the original LambdaMOO this place feels like. And the ability to create content and share it is very much like that original concept. The developers could learn a lot by looking at that.

I think object code would be good. What I mean is compiled libraries that can be included with your object. This lets you protect your scripting investment and sell APIs to people building objects that would require the things that you've coded. You would provide documentation about what your functions do and how to use them and they could call the functions, but wouldn't actually be able to see the source code.

1) Classes, or at least structs.
2) Some method of storing data persistently even if the script crashes. Maybe writing to notecards, maybe something else, just let us store data in something more permanent.
3) Hashes. It makes for much easier understanding of the code later.

Not strictly script related, but for building in general, I'd love for the following two

1) A way to unwrap an object and download the resulting texture, or email it. Ideally, we could construct something, color the faces distinctively in game, then go to edit mode and get the surface texture so we could work on it in photoshop without wasting a ton of time trying the get the shape of the texture just right first.

2) VRML imports or something similar to let us build objects outside of game.

This is going to seem like a silly proposal until one gives it some thought. But the core of the concept I think is valid:

Offer a second scripting language, one that is more intuitive and language-friendly.

Let me explain: One of the biggest problems with the current LLanguage is that it is quite complex (even for professional programmers), very grammar-unforgiving (ie, a simple uppercase character rather than lower case can foul up the program), and offers very little in the way of debugging features.

The scripting language is intended to be used by clients. The vast majority of these clients have no programming-language knowledge whatsoever. Those of us who do are often frustrated because something in a script isn't working and it's fiendish trying to figure out why (usually it's because of some obscure bug or ill-documented program reference).

A user-friendly language is just as easy to provide these days as a user unfriendly language.

As an example, rather than having a system where we have to feed the program some diabolically difficult-to-understand math system just to get it to rotate a prim a certain direction, why can't the language simply state:

Rotate (X-5, Y+2, Z 0).

Is that so difficult?

Sure, one can write a line that contains much more difficult coding concepts, by why use 12 big words when one small one will do? This has been the pox of the tech world for decades. Tech people forget how to speak plain english and they write code that is computer-friendly rather than code that is user-friendly.

If you have users who want to script... then provide them with a user-friendly, plain-english, common-sense language. Professional programmers poo-poo BASIC, but I'll tell you one thing the language did: it brought more useful computer programs to market than any other language in history, because for once, people could understand what they were coding, and it allowed businessmen to write their own code to do exactly what they needed it to do.

Now I'm not a big fan of BASIC, but I am a fan of code that is common-language oriented. I would LOVE to see Linden language that is written like we think:

TITLE Greeter Robot
START
Prim color RED

Repeat 10:
MovePrim X+.1
EndRepeat
Prim Color Normal

Stretch(All,+3)
WaitSecond .1
Stretch (All,-3)
Say Channel 0:"Hello User, welcome to a more friendly language."

END

See? Didn't even have to document this and you can tell what it does. Try that with Linden Language sometime. This I believe, would be the #1 greatest improvement to the current langauge system. I know it would have to be an alternative to the current language due to all the existing scripts, but I wonder how many scripters would be more than willing to re-write their scripts if they could convert to an easier-to-understand, less-buggy language system?

SInce so many ppl have made use of the Sit family, how about adding a little more functionality for something like an llStandTarget() or even a trigger for things that happen when an avatar stand up from an object such as llOnStand() rather than having to use sensors all of the time for certain tasks.

oooh and cookies!

Newbie scripter here, but I can think of one thing that would immensely help me: in-game documentation. Currently you can mouse-hover over a function and get at least the function call definition, but I'd like to be able to hit another key, or right-click or something and get a description of that function. Since there is apparently some kind of HTML-linking in 1.7, even just being able to pull up the wiki page in-game without having to swap back and forth between the browser and the UI if all you want to know is some minor definition of what the parameters mean. Of course reading the browser is always going to give you a better perspective than looking stuff up in-game without a full-featured browser, but if I just want a _little_ more info than the function names...

also, to comment on the suggestion of a more "simple" scripting language - I am vehemently against the idea. For several reasons. First, "simple" languages just aren't - you always wind up with someone asking for more functionality because they want to do x in "simplescript" and eventually you wind up with LSL only a different syntax. Second, "english-language-like" languages just bite because trying to cram programming concepts into a non-programming-language-like programming language just ends up being awkward and useless. Look at AppleScript. Third and related, something one person finds "intuitive" is invariably going to just be confusing to many others, and vice-versa. There's rarely any common ground when it comes to writing "intuitive" script grammars.

In my experience (and this is just my opinion) to get a scripting language that's functional enough for people to do what they want with it, by definition you have to provide all the basic functionality of any full-blown programming language, and at that point you have lost whatever benefit you might have gained from having a more "simplistic" system.

Appreciate your thoughts. Totally disagree, but appreciate your opinions.

What you're basically saying (at least as far as I understand) is that a language has to be complex to be functional and that it's not possible to write an easy-to-understand language that has all the bells and whistles. The entire tech world has carried that attitude for decades-- and it's just plain bogus.

Tech does not have to be complicated to work. Computer language does not have to be user-unfriendly and complex to get the job done. It has a lot to do with the intuitiveness of the language designers and how well that language is written. It also has to do with how well the program designers know how the average person thinks and works. (no, you're not going to please all the people all the time, but you can please 99% of them).

Computer tech books are a good example. I can't count the number of hours I've spent trying to figure out a tech manual that was written in technojargon because the author was so tech-bound he didn't know how to speak plain english. Then I'd open another book and find the answer within 5 minutes because that author not only knew his tech-- he also knew how to communicate with people.

A good example is the LL Language Wiki. A more tech-mired, no-examples, user-unfriendly and difficult to understand tech manual I have never seen. Needs to be totally re-written. Unfortunately, due to human nature it seems that those who really know their tech speak better with computers than they do with people, and the ones that know how to speak with people and know tech both are rather rare.

Let me give one prime example: Is there any reason in the world that we have to write a coding line such as (and this is an imaginary example, not real coding):

{
COUNTER==++1
}


Instead of simply:

COUNTER=COUNTER+1

The first is prone to programming and syntax errors and requires the programmer to have memorized precise syntax, whereas the second is logical and simple as pie. Brackets are a useless throwback to the days of Cobol and early C and it seems the industry hasn't quite figured out that brackets, extra + and = signs, etc... simply are not necessary. Languages can be written to eliminate all that extra typing and data entry.

Nope, I have to stick wit' me guns; a simple programming language is possible-- and desirable. Not that it's going to happen here, but if we're gonna wish, might as well wish bigtime.

I love this idea, I second this motion.

Wayfinder, I dont think it is because it is impossible to make one - but that it is pointless and less efficient. Your last comment about brackets just boggles my mind.

Why would that boggle your mind? Why are brackets necessary in a programming language (and before answering that, remember there are many languages that don't require brackets)? It's just extra typing the programmer has to do, and in the case of LindenLanguage... the source of many a programmer's headache due to an omitted or misplaced bracket.

I know, people get USED to something and think that's the way it has to be, but let me present a couple of examples:

Years ago a study was done to determine how much wasted effort was spent in data processing. Someone presented the concept that maybe pressing ENTER at the end of one-character data fields was unneccessary, and someone else presented the idea that a double mouse click was useless.

What?? Heresy!

No, not heresy. The study proved that TENS OF THOUSANDS of man hours a year were spent in pressing unnecessary keys. And so in later versions of Windows, Micro$oft started including the option to use single mouse clicks instead and almost all programs these days have eliminated pressing ENTER at the end of a single-character data field.

So why would the idea of eliminating antiquated programming concepts boggle the mind?

Or rather, were you boggled 'cause the idea is so brilliant?

However, I am boggled at something: why would anyone be against simplification of a computer language? I have to wonder sometimes... LOL

Well simplification has two downsides. It can both make code harder to read, and it can make code loose functionality. For instance if all function names were abbreviated to four letters, people may find that they have to constantly look up function meanings to understand the code they are reading. Symbols also have purposes, and removing them can take away the ability to do what the symbols allowed. If you remove squigly brackets for instance, you may be removing the codes ability to support multiple lines of code being bundled together. You can use other symbols, but two characters are not a key intensive option for outlining the borders of a function. It is also nice that the LSL programming language is so like C. C is a good model, since so many people have already learned this language or learned a language like it. Why make people have to learn something completely new. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

By the way, it is not hard to find curly brackets if you use standard programming conventions. Your curly bracket should all be lined up with everything inside them tabbed one space in. This makes it easy to quickly scan your program for any missing squigly brackets. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you should look at how the code is written in the wiki. You will see that the curly brace pairs are easy to spot.

1. #include

2. More object oriented style programming such as data protection and user defined types.

3. I'm new to LSL itself, so I'm still wondering if this is already possible. I would like a function that allows the user to use keys that don't normally control their Avatar. Is there already a function that does this? I already know about the values and functions for the Avatar movement buttons and mouse buttons.

4. Functions that control the joints of an avatar for those of us without poser.

5. Many more functions of any kind would always be nice, no matter what they are. The less I have to do myself, the better.

the ability to link objects with scripts and not have the scripts interfear with ieachother. For instance an"earth orbiting a sun and a "moon" orbiting the earth without them all freaking out when linked. I dont know much about scripting so this might be impossible I have no idea

I didnt read anybodys answer cause I don't really care. But if nobody has mentioned more open source scripts then thats where my vote is. Availiable scripts to play with and read allows the non geeks to learn how to script and also makes building more fun.

1. I want the Mono inclusion to give us C++. This would dwarf any other things that I want, by a ton. ( And it would give us arrays, OOP, etc. )

Is this possible? I looked through the Mono website, and it looks like something like this is supported by Mono.

2. Arrays, or at least tweak how lists work. Lists use horrific amounts of memory.

3. llCopyInventory -- Reassigns keys

4. llRenameInventory

5. event instant_message( string sender, key id, string msg )

Is this thread reopened? (looks to be started 2 yrs ago)

well if it is:

1. ERROR HANDLING EVENTS!!
2. variables global to an object
3. push_object(integer push) accepts TRUE/FALSE
4. llTeleport(string region, vector location)
5. llSetOwnerRich();

I know, I'm crazy

I'd like a small cut-down version of the server ;)

All I want is to be able to connect to localhost and build and test my stuff in one blank sim. Offline.
The waiting for save updates is somewhat annoying and being blown several sims away from the occasional terrorist attack is distracting, albeit amusing ;) Not to mention some of us don't have unlimited accounts with our ISPs (we really should).

Of course, it means that someone is bound to try and crack the server, so I don't expect this will happen.
--
Copper

Four Words:

True Object Oriented Language.




Additionally, I've found that there is an extensive lack of documentation on the root variables and methods inherent to the game, preventing the creation of new functions/methods to cover those things that aren't provided to us in the base of LSL.

No particular order:
+ Auto-completion - typing the same thing over and over is very tedious.
+ Find/Replace - ohhh please.. this is basic stuff.
+ Structures/User-Defined Classes/Objects - for true object oriented programming style.
+ Multi-Dimensional Lists/Arrays - *drool*
+ Include based on UUID of script that contains library functions *slobber*

And while these is not strictly a scripting improvement and more of a feature requests:
+ llRequestObjectData() - I'm sick of having to send emails to objects in other sims just to get basic information such as their name. I know why this doesn't exist... and I know the complications involved in implementing it.. but I can dream.

+ MORE GROUP COMMANDS!!!!!! There are only 2 available and they both do the same thing. This is a real sore spot for a lot of people, especially developers who own sims.

My main request would be data storage.

Write to notecard is not allowed due to asset server load it would create. So create something else that will allow data to be stored by a script.

Thanks

XML-RPC to work in both directions and/or xmlhttprequest

llDeleteScript()

Takes itself out of an object, permanently. Great if you wanted to rezz a set of objects, have them alter themselves according to script, and then become inert.
Not much else.

The ability to widen the pulldown that lists all the linden words so they can all be read.

Create a list of user defined words with "find" "replace" and "paste-in" functions

Yes I am lazy.

ummm more than 16k?

ummmmm afaik

counter++;
counter+=1;
counter=counter+1;

all work in sl.
neither is really harder to use.
I wish:
x = (x>i) ? 0 : x++;
worked -- oh oh is it to late to ask for that?

llRemoveInventory(llGetScriptName());