Jump to content




Why doesn't CC use luaj-3.0?

java lua

60 replies to this topic

#21 Lupus590

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 02 March 2015 - 08:56 AM

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 02 March 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

To add more to this: I've started a OpenComputerCraft mod which essentially is a source based rewrite of ComputerCraft but within legal limits. However, the name may need to be changed. It is being dubbed opencc, and will have an open-governance module. It's obviously still in the work but hopefully this is will help with alot of the Open Source issues and allow greater usage of CC as a whole as it should be compatible with CC itself. So, like a distro essentially.

https://github.com/O...terCraft/opencc

You may want to look into OpenComputers too. You may find some good stuff in their source.

Edited by Lupus590, 02 March 2015 - 08:58 AM.


#22 wieselkatze

  • Members
  • 221 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:43 AM

View PostMKlegoman357, on 01 March 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

View Postwieselkatze, on 01 March 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

As there is a timer on the Java side to terminate those programs if they take too long that shouldn't be the problem.
The thing is - if a computer is taking too long it wouldn't have to affect other computers, because they would be executing normally. Then the other computer would get killed.
Also I don't see 3 or 4 computers tying down the whole server as 1 computer doesn't produce any load on my CPU ( not yielding, but computing ) - server CPUs do have a lot more performance.

And what about people who like to make an underground base full of computers (from 20 to 60) which are all running some piece of software all the time? Seriously, I've seen these things on every CC server I've been on. Imagine a server handling 100+ instances of LuaVM. Oh, and it would either have to create one for every new computer placed or whenever you'd opened up a computer. Though, there was a solution to this proposed somewhere on the subforum: have a few threads (LuaVMs) which would be running, lets say, 30 computers each.

I think with Lua 5.2 and it's environments they've made a big mistake. Function environments, how they worked previously (Lua 5.1), IMO were a lot better and more flexible. Now, what they did was adding "magic" to Lua. I'm talking about the _ENV table, it uses a local variable "magic". I'm not a fan of those "magical" powers a language may have. It seems like that kind of thing was already possible (kind of) with the debug library. Well, at least it is still possible to recreate [set|get]fenv with the debug library in Lua 5.2+. But if CC would update to Lua 5.2/5.3 then I think adding backwards compatibility would actually be nice, keeping in mind that we cannot use the debug library.

I meant 3 or 4 computers running at the same time.
Even if there are like 60 computers it would only execute 4 simultaneously - probably a misunderstanding.

#23 ElvishJerricco

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 02:31 PM

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 02 March 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

To add more to this: I've started a OpenComputerCraft mod which essentially is a source based rewrite of ComputerCraft but within legal limits. However, the name may need to be changed. It is being dubbed opencc, and will have an open-governance module. It's obviously still in the work but hopefully this is will help with alot of the Open Source issues and allow greater usage of CC as a whole as it should be compatible with CC itself. So, like a distro essentially.

https://github.com/O...terCraft/opencc

Computercraft stands to gain a lot by going open source, but not by dividing the community...

#24 jaredallard

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted 02 March 2015 - 03:30 PM

View PostElvishJerricco, on 02 March 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 02 March 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

To add more to this: I've started a OpenComputerCraft mod which essentially is a source based rewrite of ComputerCraft but within legal limits. However, the name may need to be changed. It is being dubbed opencc, and will have an open-governance module. It's obviously still in the work but hopefully this is will help with alot of the Open Source issues and allow greater usage of CC as a whole as it should be compatible with CC itself. So, like a distro essentially.

https://github.com/O...terCraft/opencc

Computercraft stands to gain a lot by going open source, but not by dividing the community...

Look at FreeBSD, OpenBSD and BSD. They are all different from the original, yet they all unite as one community. It doesn't have to divide the community.

#25 Lupus590

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 02 March 2015 - 03:30 PM

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 02 March 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

View PostElvishJerricco, on 02 March 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 02 March 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

-snip-

Computercraft stands to gain a lot by going open source, but not by dividing the community...

Look at FreeBSD, OpenBSD and BSD. They are all different from the original, yet they all unite as one community. It doesn't have to divide the community.

With the risk of sounding negative: there is probably a few examples of the opposite though too.



Perhaps Dan should change the CC licence to allow others to change the source provided that they/we don't use it in other places. That way he can make the source public but doesn't have to worry about other stealing his code. Although I doubt that a text document named LICENCE would get in the way of people stealing code.

However, if Dan is keeping CC closed source to hide possibly exploitable code from malicious players, there is not much we can do other than promise that the exploits will be removed before the malicious people can 'do their thing'.

Edited by Lupus590, 02 March 2015 - 03:45 PM.


#26 Lignum

  • Members
  • 558 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 03:45 PM

View PostLupus590, on 02 March 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

However, if Dan is keeping CC closed source to hide possibly exploitable code from malicious players, there is not much we can do other than promise that the exploits will be removed before the malicious people can 'do their thing'.
If you want to understand ComputerCraft's inner workings, you can easily decompile it with a tool such as this one. Remember: You can never fully hide your source code from anyone.

#27 ElvishJerricco

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 04:09 PM

Would it be too far to start a petition to open source CC? It'd help Dan out a lot to have the community working on bug fixes and performance boosts.

#28 Lyqyd

    Lua Liquidator

  • Moderators
  • 8,465 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 04:27 PM

Opening the ComputerCraft source (or not doing so) is entirely up to Dan. He holds the copyright to it and can license it in any way he sees fit. I'm sure he's already aware that there are people in the community who would be interested in contributing if he did open it. Personally, I would see a petition asking him to open source it as disrespectful, giving the message that the signers feel that Dan is incompetent to manage his own mod.

Remember that modders work for free to generate content and give it away to everyone. If he chooses to keep the source code closed, that is entirely up to him. Dan doesn't owe us anything, and I'm sure all of us here will agree that his contribution to the Minecraft modding world has given us all many hours of entertainment. Let's tone back the calls for open-sourcing the mod somewhat, please. :)

#29 jaredallard

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted 02 March 2015 - 05:15 PM

View PostLyqyd, on 02 March 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

Opening the ComputerCraft source (or not doing so) is entirely up to Dan. He holds the copyright to it and can license it in any way he sees fit. I'm sure he's already aware that there are people in the community who would be interested in contributing if he did open it. Personally, I would see a petition asking him to open source it as disrespectful, giving the message that the signers feel that Dan is incompetent to manage his own mod.

Remember that modders work for free to generate content and give it away to everyone. If he chooses to keep the source code closed, that is entirely up to him. Dan doesn't owe us anything, and I'm sure all of us here will agree that his contribution to the Minecraft modding world has given us all many hours of entertainment. Let's tone back the calls for open-sourcing the mod somewhat, please. :)/>/>

Now, I think that suggesting something go open-source is in no way an insult of his abilities. Infact, I'd say thinking so might be a bit arrogant as not one person can be perfect, hence why we have open-source projects (then again this is my own opinion). A lot of the community wants it to be open-source because we like the mod, because we want to improve the mod and add to it.

This mod had and still has so much potential, as it's gone so far one person can't really do something that a community of hundreds wants in a quick time frame!

Regardless, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of how Dan200 may or may not take it, that's for him to say or not say, and with your call to lower the open-source talk as this is a forum on the mod, and this is a thread requesting a feature that if the mod was open-source could be already implemented or etc.

Edited by RainbowDashDC, 02 March 2015 - 05:28 PM.


#30 Lyqyd

    Lua Liquidator

  • Moderators
  • 8,465 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:06 PM

I think you missed the point that I was actually making, which is that I thought that a petition requesting that the mod be made open source would be disrespectful. I'm a big fan of open source, and I would also be appreciative if Dan decided to open up the mod.

#31 Lupus590

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:14 PM

I'm sure that Dan is aware that there are some of us who would like to see CC go open source. We just need to respectfully wait and politely ask.

PS: we seam to have had topic drift, the original post was about why CC doesn't use the latest version of luaj-3.0

Edited by Lupus590, 02 March 2015 - 11:14 PM.


#32 ElvishJerricco

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:24 PM

Yea there's not much to say about why we don't use luaj-3.0. It would break backwards compatibility and we'd lose function environments, which are extremely important in an environment like CC. That's basically it.

Edited by ElvishJerricco, 02 March 2015 - 11:24 PM.


#33 Lupus590

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:31 PM

But the point of the OP was that they tested it with a decompiled CC and didn't encounter any issues. (In fact, the port fixed one) And later on in the thread we discussed that the thinks like function environments would be re-implementable through java.

#34 Geforce Fan

  • Members
  • 846 posts
  • LocationMissouri, United States, America, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe 42B, Life Street, Multiverse, 4th Dimension

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:57 PM

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 02 March 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

To add more to this: I've started a OpenComputerCraft mod which essentially is a source based rewrite of ComputerCraft but within legal limits. However, the name may need to be changed. It is being dubbed opencc, and will have an open-governance module. It's obviously still in the work but hopefully this is will help with alot of the Open Source issues and allow greater usage of CC as a whole as it should be compatible with CC itself. So, like a distro essentially.

https://github.com/O...terCraft/opencc
CCV2
was fun, CCV1. You had a looooong run.

Edited by Geforce Fan, 02 March 2015 - 11:57 PM.


#35 jaredallard

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted 03 March 2015 - 12:06 AM

Id like to add that when I say no issues in referring to getting lua to actually run within MC. Not the bios or etc, that was all untested. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, a compatibility layer would most likely work with luaj-3 or even a modified fork with it re-implemented. (planned in opencc so far)

#36 ElvishJerricco

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:28 AM

View PostLupus590, on 02 March 2015 - 11:31 PM, said:

But the point of the OP was that they tested it with a decompiled CC and didn't encounter any issues. (In fact, the port fixed one) And later on in the thread we discussed that the thinks like function environments would be re-implementable through java.

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 03 March 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:

Id like to add that when I say no issues in referring to getting lua to actually run within MC. Not the bios or etc, that was all untested. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, a compatibility layer would most likely work with luaj-3 or even a modified fork with it re-implemented. (planned in opencc so far)

But function environments are fundamental to CC, and this can't be worked around in 5.3.

#37 jaredallard

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:45 AM

View PostElvishJerricco, on 03 March 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

View PostLupus590, on 02 March 2015 - 11:31 PM, said:

But the point of the OP was that they tested it with a decompiled CC and didn't encounter any issues. (In fact, the port fixed one) And later on in the thread we discussed that the thinks like function environments would be re-implementable through java.

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 03 March 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:

Id like to add that when I say no issues in referring to getting lua to actually run within MC. Not the bios or etc, that was all untested. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, a compatibility layer would most likely work with luaj-3 or even a modified fork with it re-implemented. (planned in opencc so far)

But function environments are fundamental to CC, and this can't be worked around in 5.3.

I highly suggest we fork luaj-3 and implement a 5.3 w/ function enviroments.

#38 ElvishJerricco

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 05:33 AM

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 03 March 2015 - 02:45 AM, said:

View PostElvishJerricco, on 03 March 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

View PostLupus590, on 02 March 2015 - 11:31 PM, said:

But the point of the OP was that they tested it with a decompiled CC and didn't encounter any issues. (In fact, the port fixed one) And later on in the thread we discussed that the thinks like function environments would be re-implementable through java.

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 03 March 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:

Id like to add that when I say no issues in referring to getting lua to actually run within MC. Not the bios or etc, that was all untested. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, a compatibility layer would most likely work with luaj-3 or even a modified fork with it re-implemented. (planned in opencc so far)

But function environments are fundamental to CC, and this can't be worked around in 5.3.

I highly suggest we fork luaj-3 and implement a 5.3 w/ function enviroments.

But then 5.3 code doesn't work correctly...

#39 jaredallard

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted 03 March 2015 - 05:45 AM

View PostElvishJerricco, on 03 March 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

But then 5.3 code doesn't work correctly...

No no no, I mean alongside. It would be entirely possible to have a method of "switching" between the two if they couldn't be used at the same time.

Edited by RainbowDashDC, 03 March 2015 - 05:45 AM.


#40 ElvishJerricco

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 05:56 AM

View PostRainbowDashDC, on 03 March 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

View PostElvishJerricco, on 03 March 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

But then 5.3 code doesn't work correctly...

No no no, I mean alongside. It would be entirely possible to have a method of "switching" between the two if they couldn't be used at the same time.

But lua 5.3 literally removes the getglobal instruction. Without it, it's actually impossible to use environments. And with it, it's impossible to do the normal 5.3 method.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users