realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RBScript passing objects to the context

To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Subject: Re: RBScript passing objects to the context
From: Eric Baumgartner <ericreg at inquirium dot net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:03:39 -0800
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <20050131015650 dot 5D7416DC4EF at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Will Leshner wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:56:04 -0500, SirG3 <thesirg3 at gmail dot com> wrote:
 Sorry I'm a little late chiming in on this one. I've done a lot of
 work extending RBScript and I believe it *is* very possible to allow
 it to access the whole RB API. This is because I have done it (well,
 not all, but portions, just as a proof of concept.). I ran into a bug
 > however, when trying to get events working.
 http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=umtctwkm
 is the bug. For anyone interested I could send you what I've been
 working on.

It is definitely possible, as the next release of Arbee is going to
show. We have made FolderItem and Dictionary classes accessible to
RBScripts, for example.

Holy nVIR, Batman! I'm sure you have a good reason for wanting to expose FolderItem, but in terms of "gaping security holes" this is a good example. Expose FolderItem to scripts and script kiddies can erase hard drives. That's why Flash and Java applets don't let you touch the local file system.

I think it's a good idea to push for ways to allow RBScripts to be more object-oriented, but I agree with those who are concerned that simply opening up RB's internal objects to scripts is a really bad idea. Making RBScript-generated objects available to RB, sure -- that's a great idea. And it would be nice to come up with a way for developers to include "precompiled headers" that define classes for scripters to use. (Caching compiled scripts would be really nice.)

My take -- and I'm sure some folks here disagree -- is that RBScript is very well suited for creating domain-specific languages that enable users to accomplish things I didn't expect. Its object support could be better. But I don't expect or want it to be a full-blown general purpose development language. That's what RB is for.

--
Eric Baumgartner
http://www.inquirium.net/design2learn/
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>