šŸ“ƒ SLua Alpha

General discussion and feedback on Second Life's SLua Alpha
Add the missing other half of IPC, enable proper unit testing, and get SL taken more seriously by game devs: Synchronous script-to-script method calls, in addition to link messages.
You're already working on a major overhaul with Lua. NOW is the right time. It will NEVER, EVER be easier than RIGHT NOW. You will NEVER be able to reduce future capex on inefficient scripting overhead more easily than RIGHT NOW. Link messages: Good for broadcasting messages between scripts where it doesn't matter much if it takes a few milliseconds to arrive, and you don't mind scripting some asynchronous handler to respond if necessary. Doesn't do a good job at supporting proper organization of software in accordance with modern standards any developer expects. OK for the the Single Responsibility Principle and to some extent the Interface Segregation Principle. Does absolutely nothing to help with unit or integration tests. No serious programmer is looking at this and saying, "yes, this is good and cool." Direct, synchronous calls to public interfaces between objects: Java, TypeScript, C#, Lua (not mentioning this by accident), Python, and any other serious programming language you can mention, supports this natively. This was introduced in Simula 67 in 1967, and has been INDUSTRY-SANDARD ever since, because it's awesome and it rules. We get to call public methods on other objects (scripts) synchronously, just as fast, or nearly so, as we would call a function in the same script. You DON'T have to engineer a massive comprehensive interface mechanism between scripts, or build an include mechanism. You add ONE transmitting function to the LL library, back-end routing between Luau states in the back-end, and an in-script state handler which receives and responds to these messages. That's it! We don't have to engineer extremely hacky workarounds that force an asynchronous mechanism to serve for what would be VASTLY improved if it was synchronous. We get to write unit and integration tests without cramming them into the same file as production code, where they take up valuable RAM. We feel like we're using a real programming language, one which allows us to use the same patterns and techniques as ANY serious programming language from the last 58 years. Real Example (my aircraft physics system): A Weight & Balance script scans the linkset to determine where all the components are, their volumes and orientations. These are mapped to inertia proxies (cuboid, flat plate, thin hoop, etc) and used to calculate the inertia tensor. The airfoil prims are then split into segments (blade element theory) and have control surface information assigned. Linear force physics script has to obtain a full copy of all the airfoil parameters and segments from W&B. Moments (angular force) physics script has to do the same thing, and spend the same memory. Now the object has three independent copies of the same data. There are a ton of copy-pasted functions between these scripts because there is no #include method. This requires more storage for the script source, compiled bytecode, stack and heap segments as well. Not just for airfoil parameters, but for MANY, MANY other things that Linear and Moments both have to know about. If Linear and Moments both run timers, then LL pays for CPU for that. They are only in separate scripts to work around RAM limitations! If they could call a shared lib script in near-real-time, they could be in ONE script with ONE timer. LL is paying for all that overhead. I am losing huge amounts of time dealing with it. Everybody loses, and it sucks. Every other day I'm fighting stack-heap collisions, and wishing I had some way to effectively write unit tests. The constant discouragement is dragging me down unnecessarily. With direct inter-script calls: llInvoke(link, scriptKey, "method", args...) -> Luau back-end routes call from one Lua state (script) to the other, then returns whatever needs to be returned. (Just an example.) You can make this only work in the link set, or make it work sim-wide. (Sim-wide would enable a lot of cool stuff that relies on llRegionSay() now.) Transmitting script blocks until response received. If access control is desired on the receiving end, you can add a pin to the invoke message (a la the existing "remote load script PIN"), or whatever. In my project, Linear and Moments can just ask W&B for airfoil data in near-real time, and get an answer back in microseconds. Functions for calculating rho, tangential velocity, dozens of aeronautical equations, etc. can be in a standard library. Scripts can call that library, again, getting answers back in microseconds, instead of all that copy-pasted code gobbling up space on YOUR servers. You don't have to provide an #include mechanism, further conserving space. I can write UNIT AND INTEGRATION TESTS!!! and stop relying on horrid llOwnerSay() spam for everything. I can stop feeling so EXHAUSTED while trying to do serious innovation in SL. More efficient scripts from now on -> reduced capex for LL. LL wins, SL developers win, users win, EVERYBODY WINS. What's not to like?
3
Ā·
Feature
Always treat both 0 and 1 as root prim
In 1-prim objects, root prim has link number 0. In other prims, root prim has link number 1 ( =LINK_ROOT ). This behavior should change: It's a pain to make scripts work with both types of objects Link numbers are so close to already using 1-based indexing, like everything else in SLua has been already changed to. This change would complete that transition For functions that accept a link number: 0 and 1 should both be treated equally as the root prim number, regardless of prim count This change should be made in SLua at least, but possibly in LSL and Mono as well. (it's probably easier to change both) I can't think of a reason this would break existing LSL content, as it only makes the functions do something useful where they previously did nothing (Suzanna thought of a theoretical reason it could break code below) For functions that return a link number: In LSL, they must be left alone, as this check is somewhat common to test for 1-prim vs multi-prim: if (llGetLinkNumber()) In SLua, they should be changed to always return 1 ( =LINK_ROOT ). This makes them more consistent, and SLua has no backwards compatibility concerns yet (This is the main reason this proposal is in SLua-Alpha and not Scripting Bugs) These functions accept link numbers, and return a prim property: ll.AvatarOnLinkSitTarget ll.GetLinkKey ll.GetLinkMedia ll.GetLinkName ll.GetLinkNumberOfSides ll.GetLinkPrimitiveParams ll.GetLinkSitFlags ll.GetObjectLinkKey ll.IsLinkGLTFMaterial These functions accept link numbers, and modify them: ll.BreakLink ll.ClearLinkMedia ll.LinkAdjustSoundVolume ll.LinkParticleSystem ll.LinkPlaySound ll.LinkSetSoundQueueing ll.LinkSetSoundRadius ll.LinkSitTarget ll.LinkSetSoundRadius ll.MessageLinked ll.SetLinkAlpha ll.SetLinkCamera ll.SetLinkColor ll.SetLinkGLTFOverrides ll.SetLinkMedia ll.SetLinkPrimitiveParams ll.SetLinkPrimitiveParams({PRIM_LINK_TARGET}) ll.SetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast ll.SetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast({PRIM_LINK_TARGET}) ll.SetLinkRenderMaterial ll.SetLinkSitFlags ll.SetLinkTexture ll.SetLinkTextureAnim ll.SetPrimitiveParams({PRIM_LINK_TARGET}) ll.SitOnLink These functions return a link number: LLEvents.link_message ll.CastRay ll.DetectedLinkNumber DetectedEvent.getLinkNumber ll.GetLinkNumber ll.GetObjectDetails({OBJECT_LINK_NUMBER})
3
Ā·
Feature
Provide seedable (CS)PRNG implementations to SLua scripts for predictable RNG
Having math.randomseed start a consistent pseudorandom sequence in each script when calling math.random allows saving and restoring, or transmitting any procedurally generated object simply by storing, recalling, or transmitting the seed, assuming knowledge of the procedure used to generate the object, be it an instance of a puzzle, a maze, a level in a game or whatever. Without this, one is obliged to either save, restore, and/or transmit potentially a great deal of data, or to create one's own pseudorandom number generator that does not depend on math.random. Also, when debugging a script, being able to repeat a psuedorandom sequence to get consistent results among trials can be invaluable when dealing with intermittent faults and tracking down uncommon errors. I like the idea that if math.randomseed has not been called, that the effective seed is itself random as is presently the case. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I feel that it is valuable to be able to stipulate a seed that applies specifically to the script in question and does not affect and is not affect by sequences being generated by any other scripts concurrently running. On possible option that might be less painful than completely replacing the current implementation, could be to add a second math.rand and math.randseed pair that performed as described above, using a relatively simple, fast algorithm that might not be guaranteed to be quite as well randomized as math.random, but that is adequate for randomized procedural object generation.
1
Ā·
Feature
Ā·
tracked
Load More
→