Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language
johnzenger at gmail.com
johnzenger at gmail.com
Sun Nov 26 21:36:27 EST 2006
Have you considered JavaScript Spidermonkey or JavaScript Rhino?
Sandboxing is automatic, and lots of people know the language already
(although fewer people are familiar with its dynamic object-oriented
capabilities).
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.
>
> --
> Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas
More information about the Python-list
mailing list