I was reading up about setting up NeoVim and it is stated that NeoVim has an inbuilt Lua runtime, which makes it super fast.
Here is a reference to one of the posts regarding the same:
https://www.reddit.com/r/neovim/comments/q7dp56/what_exactly_is_the_point_of_lua_in_neovim/
Does that mean Vim uses an external runtime? If so, what exactly is an external runtime?
If a runtime is a stage wherein the entity under concern is executed along with access to the supporting files required for its execution, I'm not sure how can there be an external/internal runtime and what would it mean for a text editor like vim/NeoVim.
You have two ways to extend Vim's functionalities:
With vimscript, the built-in scripting language which evolved over time out of the Ex commands inherited from its ancestors. This is probably what you call "internal runtime".
With the built-in interfaces to external scripting environments. It allows you to write the core of your plugins in Python, Ruby, Perl, Lua, MZScheme, and Tcl. This is probably what you call "external runtime" .
Neovim added a third way by embedding a Lua engine, allowing, in principle, users to configure and extend without vimscript. This is probably what you would call a second "internal runtime".
And Vim recently brought out a new version of vimscript, which you would also probably call a second "internal runtime".
But what Vim calls a "runtime" is really just a bunch of directories and files that are looked up and sourced during startup. There is a notion of "system runtime" (directories and files installed globally) and "user runtime" (directories and files handled locally by the user), but "internal runtime" and "external runtime" don't make any sense.
So, it has been possible to extend Vim with a number of languages beside vimscript for a very long time. Whenever you would need something that was not provided by vimscript, you could probably find it in Python or whatever and use it via the appropriate built-in interface. This has lots of obvious upsides but also some downsides, like the fact that Vim is rarely (never?) distributed with every interface enabled, which can be quite a roadblock for the user and quite a burden for the author.
Concretely, embedding the Lua engine makes it possible for Neovim users to do their thing in what they consider a better language, without having to worry as much about support: Lua is built-in, therefore Lua is always available, therefore it is the new de-facto standard for extending Neovim.
But none of that changed anything to the notion of "runtime".
Related
How does someone create a symlink in pure VimScript?
Vim is supposed to be an editor, not a shell or general purpose programming platform. Therefore its "filesystem"-API is quite limited (consider that some features may be even non-portable between many different OSes Vim may run on). So when you need shell just invoke it
:!ln -s ~/foo ~/bar
:"or like this
:call system('ln -s ~/foo ~/bar')
And this is "pure VimScript" except it depends on external tool and is slow.
In Neovim there's also Lua engine builtin. Sure, Lua is different from VimScript, but it's already there and could be invoked from VimScript too. And in case you're missing some functionality, you can extend it with binary modules (i.e. dynamic libraries) written in general purpose programming language, such as C.
Of course, there are also some other "language interfaces" in Vim but you probably don't want to load the whole Python engine only to avoid a single shell call.
I am looking to create an AI environment where users can submit their own code for the AI and let them compete. The language could be anything, but something easy to learn like JavaScript or Python is preferred.
Basically I see three options with a couple of variants:
Make my own language, e.g. a JavaScript clone with only very basic features like variables, loops, conditionals, arrays, etc. This is a lot of work if I want to properly implement common language features.
1.1 Take an existing language and strip it to its core. Just remove lots of features from, say, Python until there is nothing left but the above (variables, conditionals, etc.). Still a lot of work, especially if I want to keep up to date with upstream (though I just could also just ignore upstream).
Use a language's built-in features to lock it down. I know from PHP that you can disable functions and searching around, similar solutions seem to exist for Python (with lots and lots of caveats). For this I'd need to have a good understanding of all the language's features and not miss anything.
2.1. Make a preprocessor that rejects code with dangerous stuff (preferably whitelist based). Similar to option 1, except that I only have to implement the parser and not implement all features: the preprocessor has to understand the language so that you can have variables named "eval" but not call the function named "eval". Still a lot of work, but more manageable than option 1.
2.2. Run the code in a very locked-down environment. Chroot, no unnecessary permissions... perhaps in a virtual machine or container. Something in that sense. I'd have to research how to achieve this and how to make it give me the results in a secure way, but that seems doable.
Manually read through all code. Doable on a small scale or with moderators, though still tedious and error-prone (I might miss stuff like if (user.id = 0)).
The way I imagine 2.2 to work is like this: run both AIs in a virtual machine (or something) and constrain it to communicate with the host machine only (no other Internet or LAN access). Both AIs run in a separate machine and communicate with each other (well, with the playing field, and thereby they see each other's positions) through an API running on the host.
Option 2.2 seems the most doable, but also relatively hacky... I let someone's code loose in a virtualized or locked down environment, hoping that that'll keep them in while giving them free game to DoS or break out of the environment. Then again, most other options are not much better.
TL;DR: in essence my question is: how do I let people give me 'logic' for an AI (which I think is most easily done using code) and then run that without compromising the functionality of the system? There must be at least 2 AIs working on the same playing field.
This is really just a plugin system, so researching how others implement plugins is a good starting point. In particular, I'd look at web browsers like Chrome and Safari and their plugin systems.
A common theme in modern plugins systems is process isolation. Ideally you should run the plugin in its own process space in a sandbox. In OS X look at XPC, which is designed explicitly for this problem. On Linux (or more portably), I would probably look at NaCl (Native Client). The JVM is also designed to provide sandboxing, and offers a rich selection of languages. (That said, I don't personally consider the JVM a very strong sandbox. It's had a history of security problems.)
In general, my preference on these kinds of projects is a language-agnostic API. I most often use REST APIs (or "REST-like"). This allows the plugin to be highly restricted, while not restricting the language choice. I like simple HTTP for communications whenever possible because it has rich support in numerous languages, so it puts little restriction on the plugin. In fact, given your description, you wouldn't even have to run the plugin on your hardware (and certainly not on the main server). Making the plugins remote clients removes many potential concerns.
But ultimately, I think something like your "2.2" is the right direction.
Common Lisp allows to execute/compile code at runtime. But I thought for some (scripting-like) purposes it would be good if one could disallow a user-script to call some functions (especially for application extensions). One could still ask the user if he will allow an extension to access files/... I'm thinking of something like the Android permission system for Common Lisp. Is this possible without rewriting the evaluation code?
The problem I see is, that in Common Lisp you would probably want a script to be able to use reader macros and normal macros and for the latter operators like intern, but those would allow you to get arbitrary symbols (by string manipulation & interning), so simply scanning the code before evaluation won't suffice to ensure that specific functions aren't called.
So, is there something like a lock for functions? I thought of using fmakunbound / makunbound (and keeping the values in a local variable), but would that be possible in a multi-threaded environment?
Thanks in advance.
This is not part of the Common Lisp specification and there is no Common Lisp implementation that is extended to make this kind of restriction easy.
It seems to me like it would be easier to use operating system restrictions (e.g. rlimit, capabilities, etc) to enforce what you want on the Common Lisp process.
This is not an unusual desire, i.e. to run untrusted 3rd party code in a sandbox.
You can hand craft a sandbox by creating a custom parser and interpreter for your scripting language. It is pedantic, but true, than any program with an API is providing such a service. API designers and implementors needs to worry about the vile users.
You can still call eval or the compiler to run your sandbox scripts. It just means you need to assure that your reader, parser and language decline to provide access to any risky functionality.
You can use a lisp package to create a good sandbox. You can still use s-expressions for your scripting language's syntax, but you must cripple the standard reader so the user can't escape package-sandbox. You can still use the evaluator and the compiler, but you need to be sure the package you have boxed the user into contains no functionality that he can use to do inappropriate things.
Successful sandbox design and construction is easier when you start with an empty sandbox and slowly add functionality. Common Lisp is a big language and that creates a huge surface for attacker to poke at. So if you create a sandbox out of a package it's best to start with an empty package and add functions one at a time. Thinking thru what risks they create. The same approach is good when creating your crippled reader. Don't start with the full reader and throw things away, start with a useless reader and add things. Sadly taking that advice creates a pretty significant cost to getting started. But, if you look around I suspect you can find an existing safe reader.
Xach's suggestion is another way to go and in many case more straight forward.
My goal is to develop a DSL for my application but I want the user to be able to put a break-point in his/her DSL without the user to know anything about the underlying language that the DSL runs on and he/she see is the DSL related syntax, stack, watch variables and so on.
How can I achieve this?
It depends on your target platform. For example, if you're implementing your DSL compiler on top of .NET, it is trivial to annotate your bytecode with debugging information (variable names, source code location for expressions and statements, etc.).
If you also provide a Visual Studio extension for your language, you'll be able to reuse a royalty-free MSVS Isolated Shell for both editing and debugging for your DSL code.
Nearly the same approach is possible with JVM (you can use Eclipse or Netbeans as a debugging frontend).
Native code generation is a little bit more complicated, but it is still possible to do some simple things, like generating C code stuffed with line pragmas.
You basically need to generate code for your DSL with built-in opportunities for breakpoints, each with built-in facilities for observing the internal state variables. Then your debugger has know how to map locations in the DSL to the debug breakpoints, and for each breakpoint, simply call the observers. (If the observers have names, e.g., variable names, you can let the user choose which ones to call).
Is there a programming language which can be programmed entirely in interactive mode, without needing to write files which are interpreted or compiled. Think maybe something like IRB for Ruby, but a system which is designed to let you write the whole program from the command line.
I assume you are looking for something similar to how BASIC used to work (boot up to a BASIC prompt and start coding).
IPython allows you to do this quite intuitively. Unix shells such as Bash use the same concept, but you cannot re-use and save your work nearly as intuitively as with IPython. Python is also a far better general-purpose language.
Edit: I was going to type up some examples and provide some links, but the IPython interactive tutorial seems to do this a lot better than I could. Good starting points for what you are looking for are the sections on source code handling tips and lightweight version control. Note this tutorial doesn't spell out how to do everything you are looking for precisely, but it does provide a jumping off point to understand the interactive features on the IPython shell.
Also take a look at the IPython "magic" reference, as it provides a lot of utilities that do things specific to what you want to do, and allows you to easily define your own. This is very "meta", but the example that shows how to create an IPython magic function is probably the most concise example of a "complete application" built in IPython.
Smalltalk can be programmed entirely interactively, but I wouldn't call the smalltalk prompt a "command line". Most lisp environments are like this as well. Also postscript (as in printers) if memory serves.
Are you saying that you want to write a program while never seeing more code than what fits in the scrollback buffer of your command window?
There's always lisp, the original alternative to Smalltalk with this characteristic.
The only way to avoid writing any files is to move completely to a running interactive environment. When you program this way (that is, interactively such as in IRB or F# interactive), how do you distribute your programs? When you exit IRB or F# interactive console, you lose all code you interactively wrote.
Smalltalk (see modern implementation such as Squeak) solves this and I'm not aware of any other environment where you could fully avoid files. The solution is that you distribute an image of running environment (which includes your interactively created program). In Smalltalk, these are called images.
Any unix shell conforms to your question. This goes from bash, sh, csh, ksh to tclsh for TCL or wish for TK GUI writing.
As already mentioned, Python has a few good interactive shells, I would recommend bpython for starters instead of ipython, the advantage of bpython here is the support for autocompletion and help dialogs to help you know what arguments the function accepts or what it does (if it has docstrings).
Screenshots: http://bpython-interpreter.org/screenshots/
This is really a question about implementations, not languages, but
Smalltalk (try out the Squeak version) keeps all your work in an "interactive workspace", but it is graphical and not oriented toward the command line.
APL, which was first deployed on IBM 360 and 370 systems, was entirely interactive, using a command line on a modified IBM Selectric typewriter! Your APL functions were kept in a "workspace" which did not at all resemble an ordinary file.
Many, many language implementations come with pure command-line interactive interpreters, like say Standard ML of New Jersey, but because they don't offer any sort of persistent namespace (i.e., when you exit the program, all your work is lost), I don't think they should really count.
Interestingly, the prime movers behind Smalltalk and APL (Kay and Iverson respectively) both won Turing Awards. (Iverson got his Turing award after being denied tenure at Harvard.)
TCL can be programmed entirely interactivly, and you can cetainly define new tcl procs (or redefine existing ones) without saving to a file.
Of course if you are developing and entire application at some point you do want to save to a file, else you lose everything. Using TCLs introspective abilities its relatively easy to dump some or all of the current interpreter state into a tcl file (I've written a proc to make this easier before, however mostly I would just develop in the file in the first place, and have a function in the application to resources itself if its source changes).
Not sure about that, but this system is impressively interactive: http://rigsomelight.com/2014/05/01/interactive-programming-flappy-bird-clojurescript.html
Most variations of Lisp make it easy to save your interactive work product as program files, since code is just data.
Charles Simonyi's Intentional Programming concept might be part way there, too, but it's not like you can go and buy that yet. The Intentional Workbench project may be worth exploring.
Many Forths can be used like this.
Someone already mentioned Forth but I would like to elaborate a bit on the history of Forth. Traditionally, Forth is a programming language which is it's own operating system. The traditional Forth saves the program directly onto disk sectors without using a "real" filesystem. It could afford to do that because it didn't ran directly on the CPU without an operating system so it didn't need to play nice.
Indeed, some implementations have Forth as not only the operating system but also the CPU (a lot of more modern stack based CPUs are in fact designed as Forth machines).
In the original implementation of Forth, code is always compiled each time a line is entered and saved on disk. This is feasible because Forth is very easy to compile. You just start the interpreter, play around with Forth defining functions as necessary then simply quit the interpreter. The next time you start the interpreter again all your previous functions are still there. Of course, not all modern implementations of Forth works this way.
Clojure
It's a functional Lisp on the JVM. You can connect to a REPL server called nREPL, and from there you can start writing code in a text file and loading it up interactively as you go.
Clojure gives you something akin to interactive unit testing.
I think Clojure is more interactive then other Lisps because of it's strong emphasis of the functional paradigm. It's easier to hot-swap functions when they are pure.
The best way to try it out is here: http://web.clojurerepl.com/
ELM
ELM is probably the most interactive you can get that I know of. It's a very pure functional language with syntax close to Haskell. What makes it special is that it's designed around a reactive model that allows hot-swapping(modifying running code(functions or values)) of code. The reactive bit makes it that whenever you change one thing, everything is re-evaluated.
Now ELM is compiled to HTML-CSS-JavaScript. So you won't be able to use it for everything.
ELM gives you something akin to interactive integration testing.
The best way to try it out is here: http://elm-lang.org/try