Difference between revisions of "Talk:LlEval"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with 'What could possibly motivate LL to implement what is a GAPING SECURITY HOLE waiting to be used, in LSL? ~~~~') |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What could possibly motivate LL to implement what is a GAPING SECURITY HOLE waiting to be used, in LSL? | What could possibly motivate LL to implement what is a GAPING SECURITY HOLE waiting to be used, in LSL? | ||
[[User:Kyrah Abattoir|Kyrah Abattoir]] 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | [[User:Kyrah Abattoir|Kyrah Abattoir]] 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
My thoughts exactly, Kyrah. If we teach that it's bad practice to be used in other languages, what could be redeeming about using it in LSL? I understand the whole "dynamicism" aspect in terms of writing code that can change depending on where it's loaded from, but I can also think of more negatives than positives if this function were ever to come to fruition. It encourages dangerous practices and lazy coding. | |||
--[[User:Hawkster Westmoreland|Hawkster Westmoreland]] 21:42, 9 July 2011 (PDT) | |||
:Not only is it dangerous today, it gets ever more dangerous as script capabilities increase. You might think it's a reasonable risk today, but what about tomorrow when you give a presentation at a stockholder meeting where the majority shareholder exploits llRestrainedLife(), talk about a bind you would be in then. -- '''[[User:Strife_Onizuka|Strife]]''' <sup><small>([[User talk:Strife_Onizuka|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Strife_Onizuka|contribs]])</small></sup> 23:01, 9 July 2011 (PDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:01, 9 July 2011
What could possibly motivate LL to implement what is a GAPING SECURITY HOLE waiting to be used, in LSL? Kyrah Abattoir 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, Kyrah. If we teach that it's bad practice to be used in other languages, what could be redeeming about using it in LSL? I understand the whole "dynamicism" aspect in terms of writing code that can change depending on where it's loaded from, but I can also think of more negatives than positives if this function were ever to come to fruition. It encourages dangerous practices and lazy coding. --Hawkster Westmoreland 21:42, 9 July 2011 (PDT)
- Not only is it dangerous today, it gets ever more dangerous as script capabilities increase. You might think it's a reasonable risk today, but what about tomorrow when you give a presentation at a stockholder meeting where the majority shareholder exploits llRestrainedLife(), talk about a bind you would be in then. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2011 (PDT)