I'm interested in using an off-the-shelf interpreted language as a 
user-accessible scripting language for a MUCK.  I'm just not sure if I 
can find one that does everything I need.  The MUCK must be able to 
call the interpreter and execute scripts with it, but the interpreter 
must also be able to call functions in the MUCK code.  And then there's 
the security issue that really worries me. . .  I have to be able to 
limit what the interpreter can execute.  I can't have my users running 
scripts that access the console, access the filesystem or sockets 
directly, or call libraries or other binaries outside the MUCK.

Is this practical?  I'm thinking of Ruby or Python for this, if they 
can meet the requirements.

I might even consider REXX. . .  I remember ARexx from my Amiga days, 
and how great it was for string manipulation and application scripting. 
 However. . .  My immediate target platform, Mac OS X, comes with Ruby 
and Python but not REXX, so that's a disadvantage.

My final option would be to create my own language interpeter where I 
have control over everything that happens.  That is what MUCKs have 
always done in the past.  But the result was always quirky, limited 
languages like MUF (Multi-User Forth) which really turn off a lot of 
coders.  Furthermore, I've never created a language before, and it 
would be a lot of extra work for me.

-- 
Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas