Babbage has already said that LSO code will be "charged" 64K even though it only uses 16K. Perhaps he's changed that decision -- is that the case?
Regards Jeff On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Frans <mrfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > In response to the OP. I agree the UI will have to present that information > differently. As it is now people will merely make a decision on memory usage > and choose LSL scripts, and remove mono scripts. Likely negatively impacting > their own experience. Scripters will be driven to compile scripts as LSL for > marketing reasons, to make a product report a lower value > Preventing LL from achieving it's goal of a full move towards MONO. > > As for the dynamic vs fixed memory usage. Of course it would make sense to > have dynamic memory usage, but I haven't seen a response yet on how to solve > the problem that Kelly described, about scripts suddenly running out of > available memory to use, when they fill up lists with info, etc. And break > because of it. Or is this considered not to be a big problem? > > -- > Jeroen Frans > Virtual World Technology Specialist. > VesuviusGroup.com > SL: Frans Charming > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
