User talk:Tedd Maa/stand-alone script engine

• Although this is interesting Tedd, it doesn't seem to keep in mind one very fundamental issue: computations at the server end have limited scalability, relative to any of the pressure points on scaling, which all derive from population pressure in one way or another. No matter how we partition computing resources server-side, there will always be a key computational workload there for physics etc, so in general there is only limited power left over for ambitious scripting. While we'd all like high-powered in-world scripting, that's just not going to happen as long as the only available computing horsepower for scripting is server-side.

• Although it's not going to happen for a long time, relatively unlimited scripting power is ultimately going to have to come by harnessing the clients, through server-side orchestration of partitioned tasks distributed very dynamically across all connected participants. This is the only source of computing power that both scales with population and offers massive resource per leaf node. What's more, with multicore CPUs everywhere (and with very little work for them to do because desktop apps tend not to be structured for parallelism), this is one resource that has a very bright future.

• So, while you offer some interesting things to think about here, if you want to look ahead to a future of high-powered server-side scripting, you really need to think about workload offloading too. (That's still "server-side scripting", even though the computations are distributed and run client-side, because such computations can never under any circumstances affect the client state; "client-side scripting" is a different matter altogether.) --Morgaine Dinova 04:18, 15 October 2007 (PDT)

---

Tedd Maa: In reply to the points by Morgaine.

• There are limitations on the server side, yes. But this does not mean we should purposely design the scripting system in a bad way. It is up to the server itself to scale physics well. But the script engine is not limited to controlling physical objects. It can be clouds, smoke or even gameplay rules that don't even exist as an object in the world.

• The whole point of this design is to be able to run scripts from anywhere. For example from the client. But running it from the client breaks persistency in the world. When user logs off, objects disappear. So I imagine people who want to run their own script engine having a shell somewhere like we did back in the 90's with good old bots and bouncers on IRC. But your script can very well be bound to a script engine embedded in your SL viewer for example, no problem. The region server doesn't need to discriminate on who is running the script server if server admin doesn't want it to.

• It is still called server-side scripting. But one single script (or multiple scripts) can be any program in any programming language running on any number of computers on any number of different operating systems and CPUs anywhere in the world. As long as the region has only ONE endpoint to speak to it does not discriminate on implementation, operating system, number of computers involved in computation, etc. This is the whole essence of my plan. I will look through the document and see if maybe I didn't communicate that clearly enough. Its still just a first draft.

Tedd Maa 20071015 16:40 UTC/GMT+1

Object Orientated Program Environment

Most traditional OOP languages fall short of the object orientated design. That is they call themselves a object-oriented program language, but they are not much of a object orientated approach outside of the language itself. Notice how I use "oriented" and "orientated." One leans towards the paradigm from the outside and the other is centered in the entire paradigm and works outward. At first glance of the your plan I heard a familiar tune, and it matches with the object-oriented program languages. Such languages have been quite a step in the industry, but they have been pushed out to market before their maturity.

As you can see from my post about "Client Script & Persistent Data Object," one of the ideas here is similar. In fact, the entire concept you have presented so far can be summed up underneath paravirtual machines. On that point, to call this "Tedds stand-alone script engine" may do some injustice to those who might want to contribute to the development of this project.

Another point, the security has to go much deeper than what I see talked about in the article. To offset the execute state to a different physical area is not enough, for example. We need to be able to run arbitrary code in arbitrary locations.

I stay focused on the object-orientated environments, and I hope you follow if you continue such motives to rewrite the engine. Dzonatas Sol 12:31, 15 October 2007 (PDT)

---

good point on the "Tedds stand-alone script engine" - wasn't meant to name it at all, was meant as "Tedds proposal on ..." or "Tedds discussion on ...". I will fix that in next revision (hopefully coming in a couple of days).

Security is something I'm still thinking about. I'll try to get something more about that into next revision. (security always comes first, so it will probably dictate some of the details in the design)

Tedd Maa 20071016 21:50 UTC/GMT+1