Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mono"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Steamy Latte (talk | contribs) (Reply to Strife's comment.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Here's a question about mono that the article doesn't address: Will scripters be limited to LSL or will they be able to code in C# or something else more | Here's a question about mono that the article doesn't address: Will scripters be limited to LSL or will they be able to code in C# or something else more Mono-like? --[[User:Steamy Latte|Steamy Latte]] 12:20, 22 January 2008 (PST) | ||
:Until LL can ensure that Mono is properly sandboxed and secure, the compiler will remain server side and the only language available will be LSL. -- [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 12:40, 23 January 2008 (PST) | :Until LL can ensure that Mono is properly sandboxed and secure, the compiler will remain server side and the only language available will be LSL. -- [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 12:40, 23 January 2008 (PST) | ||
::That makes total sense. Your comment '''does''' make it sound like there's a future plan to add other languages, after adequate testing has taken place. If so it's good news, as LSL lacks OOP and is cumbersome by comparison. --[[User:Steamy Latte|Steamy Latte]] 09:53, 24 January 2008 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 10:53, 24 January 2008
Here's a question about mono that the article doesn't address: Will scripters be limited to LSL or will they be able to code in C# or something else more Mono-like? --Steamy Latte 12:20, 22 January 2008 (PST)
- Until LL can ensure that Mono is properly sandboxed and secure, the compiler will remain server side and the only language available will be LSL. -- Strife Onizuka 12:40, 23 January 2008 (PST)
- That makes total sense. Your comment does make it sound like there's a future plan to add other languages, after adequate testing has taken place. If so it's good news, as LSL lacks OOP and is cumbersome by comparison. --Steamy Latte 09:53, 24 January 2008 (PST)