Jump to content

a curousity of script learning,too general for other categories

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1961 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

im rather curious of something.


due to recent conversations and events that ive been involved in.it seems to me that the perception of "proper" lsl script learning is highly stratified at the moment. there are some,that seem fervently adhered to a blistering,rigurous,formal learning style of non-apprenticeship (not saying thats a bad thing),i have noticed that this learning style is more common RL in such places as colleges,particularly the most expensive ones

yet on the other hand.ive noticed that there seem to be an equally as significant number of people that are of a different camp.specifically,they seem to favor a much older style of learning,that of the "apprenticeship",whereupon a prospective student is taken under tutelage of a great master,with the "hands on" learning provided in exchange for the apprentice assisting the master with his monetarily rewarding work.

the "college" as it were is a ,historically speaking,very recent developement.It seems to be specifically engineered to be as if it were a "factory".take note this is not necciscarily a bad thing,it is specifically engineered to provide the quickest learning possible to the greatest amount of people possible,thus producing an overall benefit to society by affecting the vast masses of normal persons.but liek all things it has its drawbacks.much like a factory,it seems to be quite incompatible with "non-standardized parts",which is to say,if a person isnt the usual,outgoing,freindly social type,they will have insurmountable difficulty with such a system.issues of the great expense required not withstanding.

the "apprenticeship" style however,takes "far" longer than the college style.being quite non-standard,as each skill master is considerably different.it is also far less monetarily "draining",but requires considerable patience,and humility,in so much that the student must be willing to co-operate with the master on whatever level required.of course the drawbacks are that masters are relatively difficult to make in a high enough quality to be masters.and that because of it's lack of standardized instruction,it can be difficult for the normal types to assimilate.one more advantage though,it can,much like the methods of "handcrafted" production,produce things of far higher quality,and its quite tolerant of non-standard parts,or people as it were,due to the far more personal level of interaction.which thus makes it a haven for those incompatible with the "college factory" style setting.

i myself,being on the non-standard type,favor the apprenticeship style in the script learning.infact,there are two people,each good with scripting inthere own right,helping me learn,in exchange for my attempts to help them with there own projects.i myself have had,across my 26 years,a great deal of hands on learning,from many different people.so my skill set is "chaotic" in the best colloqial sense of the word.jack of all trades,master of none fits me best.one year i was taking firearms training & logging training (strange endevour,though it does exist,),the next i had the same sort of "Apprenticeship" style of job at what i was told was called a "honey apiary",where the honeycombs collected from beehives were processed.then in yet another instance afew years later,i was under yet more "apprenticeship" style learning,regarding constructing,de-constructing,and reprogramming computers.and then,on the internet i was subjected to what i call a "crash course" in 3d modeling,whereupon i had all the different sorts of methods and learnings grilled into my brain by 5 different "masters",which was quite unusual for me as im never really used to more than one master at a time. and ontop of all that,inbetween these different events,was rather rigourously taught various far flung concepts of mathmatics and science by my parents.

and strangely enough,this all fits perfectly with me.due to my non-conforming lack of social graces,the main pleasure for me is learning.i beleive most english speakers call this a "book worm",a reclusive-nerdish type that prefers the company of books to people.


and so,with all that out of the way.i would ask the communitys elaboration on these aspects.no harm,no foul,no antagonization intended.i am not being untruthful nor lieing as it were.i wish this to be an open discussion for the purposes of though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective. I'd guess a significant portion of your opinion comes from interaction on the forum here? If so, is worth noting that the forum is an interesting critter, one with a slightly different culture to in-world due to moderation and this boards history.

For me, I'd disagree that there's a limited number of routes to learning LSL, or that there's any established 'strategy' for doing so. I've been writing LSL since 2007 - professional and for fun - worked with plenty of other scripters and am well-versed in spotting the slight idiosyncrasies that each LSL-writer picks up - how they indent, when they use parenthesis, how code is structured and how variables are labelled. Have been working as part of a small non-heirarchical and non-attributing team for some years, and these skills help.

I prefer very dense, information-heavy learning and always have. Would rather learn alone than attempt to follow someone else (either verbally or in text) since I struggle to find people who can maintain this pace. I come from a somewhat unorthodox programming 'route' too (my first corporate experience was with .NET)

Some scripters come from Java backgrounds, some come from Linux/OSS, Apache or RHL. Many scripters are self-taught, and LSL is their first programming language, for some, their last programming language was CNC, Logo or COBOL. Most LSL writers (in my experience) haven't been as lucky as you and I may have been - compulsory education is increasingly teaching programming principles to young people, we've lived with algo's since we were born - and so many scripters pick up LSL as 'grown-ups', without the digital native mindset that is taken for granted by the millenial generation.

All of these 'styles' are different, all of their frames of reference differ. Teaching LSL in two or three (or twenty or fifty) different ways isn't enough to cover all of this. This mixing of skillsets and backgrounds happens in many environments, but SL is for-sure one of the least structured in regards to getting people writing code. American English isn't a complete prequisite even, provided you can read Wiki.

Anyway, important thing is you find a learning style that works for you and enjoy that. I've never seen anyone in SL ask anyone else to write code 'their way' and don't believe that this is a thing.


Link to post
Share on other sites

very good post,

also you reminded me how i forgot to mention the possibility of intermixed college and factory,or the adhoc,but writing a post that involved takes abit of a toll on my limited memory.i mostly learn by rote.


the ad-hoc team/apprenticeship/multiple masters thing is quite the trip,if you can stomach it youll learn things in days that would take standardized learning months,and learn things in months that would take standardized learning "years",and learn things in years that would take standardized learning "decades".


it reminds me abit of the depiction of captain kirk in star trek,he existed in a highly regulated,by the book organization,but existed so far on the fringe that he had the freedom to do things in very unregulated and unorthodox ways,and thus often met with far higher success than his peers.as the universe tends towards chaos the further you get from rigid order,you msut meet chaos with chaos,thats balance

Link to post
Share on other sites

MishkaKatyusha wrote:


the ad-hoc team/apprenticeship/multiple masters thing is quite the trip,if you can stomach it youll learn things in days that would take standardized learning months,and learn things in months that would take standardized learning "years",and learn things in years that would take standardized learning "decades".

Something like the "incubator" projects popping up around SilVal? Example: http://www.codeforamerica.org/companies/incubator-accelerator/

Been considering something like this, but although I talk-the-talk I'm not superly tekkiwiki. Social priorities come first and I don't live to work. Maybe some day.

MishkaKatyusha wrote:

it reminds me abit of the depiction of captain kirk in star trek

I wouldn't know - not really a fan. I do know that Star Trek is fiction, and that any adages gleaned from it were likely equally fictional and rooted in the authors preconceptions. Chaos meeting chaos looks good in film and sounds good to movie audiences (look out, he's a loose cannon!), but I bet that Kirk's hack of the Kobayashi Maru code required a lot of time, order and structure that the fanciful storytelling skipped over.

"Original thinking" indeed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes.but indeed,there is one caveat.


i apoligize,but im going to have to use an analogy from my faith to explain my next part,for i know of no other way of saying this,no offense intended,with commentary from me in parenthesis,

"for in those days,the earth was without form or substance (without form or substance is generally taken as chaos,because it is unregulated existence),and then the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters,and said "let ther be light" and there was light" (thus indicating chaos as the primordial state,or,that from which creation,and thus order,emerges,so thus,order comes from modulated chaos)"

i have alot of fun exploring the hypothetical,logical ramifications of just about everything.

the quoted paragraph was demonstrating a concept.this system of events can often be observed in nature,you have a spontaneous,unregulated mass "without form or substance",and then an applied forced interacts with it "let there be light" and then suddenly order emerges from the chaos

star formation is a great example,a great,vast,rather messy cloud of hydrogen,without form or substance,is subjected to an applied force (gravity) which causes the hydrogen to collapse in on itself,producing a star,and sometimes planets (thus order)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I'm following now. I kind of see that you're still talking about order and chaos, but not chaos needing chaos?

I've already addressed the story-writing aspect of order vs. chaos. It's granted by the author, whomever you believe that to be.

However I completely don't understand this:-

MishkaKatyusha wrote:

(thus order)

It's more likely that your personal sense of aesthetics and a narrow scope is driving your thought string here. There's no apparent order in star or planet formation, just physics. All so-far discovered planetoids have been at least as disorderly as our home planet - all bumpy and full of bubbling pressures and uninhabitable areas, spontanious explosions or runaway gaseous processes. Any perceived order is fleeting and incidental both here and anywhere else within the universe.

Humans perceive order because we like it, it suits our pattern-matching brains. We try to order human language and computers inside of this sense of order, and by doing this we create only things that are more fake, and less real. (Incidentally, religion fails this test too, being ordered to human sensibilities and shifting moral emphasis depending on the culture it's placed within.)

The Kobayashi Maru only works because it was programmed with order forced into it by the humans writing the scenario (since it was designed un-winnable). The chaos is real, but a fictional Kirk can only fight fictional order with more order, because everything that exists to him was placed there by the author. :)

Sorry for some late edits. Am picky about word selection, trying to stay clear but understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually,it was the antithesis of insisting that only order exists,from the scenario citation you yourself provided.

and in that contextual vein,since you were using that scenario citation to demonstrate against my conceptual explanation,your kind of running into circular logic by insisting that the whole thing is invalid because of the fiction of the scenario that you used to demonstrate against my concept

and as for personal aesthetics and a narrow scope driving things?i could accuse you of the same thing due to your insistence upon declarative statement absolutism that order is a fictional thing,and that physics and chaos are one and the same,infact if youll check the following link,there is plenty of information on how ,in physics,order can arise from chaos,thus functionally disproving your declarative statement



also,ill offer another logical refutation

you say "by doing this we only create things more fake,and less real"

it is an accepted logical principal that "nothing unreal exists"

so therefore,in absolutes,not only is there no such thing as "more fake,less real",thus indicating a colloqial "slip" of logic,but also this formally concludes that "if something exists,it is real".

and so thus by something like a so called "Virtual world" being played on a computer screen,it is indeed real.it is a mistake of and slip of colloqial handling of logic to think that a virtual world "is fake".it is by logic real,as it is electrons channeled through different sorts of computer hardware in different locations across the globe,which on the usual user end point uses further channeled electrons to manipulate photon outputs,causing (sometimes through physical filters like an lcd screen) the image to appear on the screen.which acts as a form of entertainment by stimulating very real neurochemical transmissions,synapse firing,and in some cases bodily response (i wont get into all the depths of that considering SL's range fo activities).

and to say that something isnt real simply because it shifts in color and shape,and size,and emphasis and sensibilitys is also a logical flaw.and infact ill refute that with a purely logical concept


Evolution in all things,from concepts,to ideas,to beleifs,to the actions those drive

and as for what religions concern.the truth of the universe as it were,that is a very essentially esoteric matter that is for the most part left out of scientific debate unless someone is looking for 15 minutes of fame.

there will be,in the essence of logical absolutism,no proof for or against such a unique concept until likely billions of years into the future,when humanity understands the universe as well as computer code nowadays.

so then running back to square 1.

when a religion insists that some such being or another created the universe.the few scientists that have foolheartedly tried to deal with the concept.insist usually one of two things.

1.because there theorys about the universe's formation have supposidly been confirmed by scientific observation,they insist that there opinion that no entity created the universe must be true.when in reality thats just circular logic since pretty much non existence,which logically is before creation,cannot be witnessed.

2.stephen hawking insists that because of things like gravity,things like universe creation can and will create themselves.we will nwo divide into two or more logical breaks,and thus defeats of this concept

2.1 when nothing exists,there is nothing.so therefore there is no gravity,nor other things to exist which would create.therefore that is a simpleton's logical error.

2.2 and to insist the something like gravity has "always been",i.e. alpha and omega,is merely switching out one diety for another in concept,and so therefore is self defeating,since the entirety of the effort is to disprove that a diety exists

2.3 circular logic.not only of course can nothing not create from nothing,but the very principle of scientific proof,scientific observation,is missing because how the universe was created,because it basically happened out of non existence,since logically non existence preceeds existence,is essentially unobservable,yet clearly happened

2.4 thus we reach the point where human conceptiosn of such things breakdown:

2.4a nothing unreal exists

2.4b what is real exists

2.4c logically,non existence preceeds existence,and clearly the universe creation,genesis,big bang (how crude),or start did infact happen

2.4d considering 2.4a and 2.4b,therefore non existence did not exist,which is a illogical-yet-logical paradox,and the start of existence did exist,which is yet another illogical-yet-logical paradox,as nonexistence must preceed existence

2.4e and also,because nothing unreal exists,and because the idea that a divine being,which is not readily observable,must therefore not be real,it runs into an absolutism logical fail,as the sole proof of such a thing would be observing the universe before creation and then the creation itself.that is also what stephen hawking's theory hinges on,

2.4f and as such,for stephen hawking to claim that he can rightfully say what happened before existence,and thus disprove the existence of a diety in the creation of the universe,by the rule of scientific observation existing as the sole proof of scientific theory,which is all stephen hawking ever does. his proof does not exist,because nothing unreal exists,so therefore non-existence does not exist

2.4g there is only one solution to this whole mess that is even remotely explanatory,virtual world cosntruction inside computers.the virtual worlds do not exist before we,the humans,create them inside the computer.and because of the elctron channeling and photon projection mentioned earlier,they are real by absolutism.and the reason why we humans eternally wrestle with the logical "bottomless pit" of creation as it were and who did what is simply this.what created the universe,must be so far above us humans in conciousness as to make us humans look "pathetically non-existent" by comparison.proof of this in this specific context is as follows:

2.4g.1: if,hypothetically,all our SL avatars were to gain self awareness,sentientcy,or both.and they tried to figure there own creation,they clearly would not be able to.as the beings that created there universe (we the humans) are so far above them in power,intellect,knowledge,and conciousness,as to make them look pathetically non-existent by comparison

2.4g.1 addendum: now you can see why the smart scientist doesnt bother debating about religion,becuase it introduces an unsolveable paradox which cannot be proven,nor disproven by either logic or science,as illustrated above.its far more sensible for the scientists,and non beleivers,to spend there time on other endevours than to host an exercise in futility,which is trying to solve an unsolveable yet very real paradox


i think i will need some rest after this,i enjoy participating in intellectual heavyweight style debates,and they are fun for me,but its exhausting


then again i suppose you could say this whole thing is pointless due to the obviously ludicrous way we have both goen off topic xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

go watch movies about confucius,or perhaps socrates,and youll soon understand xD

and also,your opinion is confined to you,while you have a right to it,insisting that everyone else beleives it is a false generalization


i likely suspect that this is an attempted for of humor,in which case,congratulations,you amde me smile after i nearly burnt my brain out xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, think you've been reading things into what I've been posting that I've not said. This is a tangle - I did wonder when you started talking backwards for a while there. Er, where to start...

MishkaKatyusha wrote:

actually,it was the antithesis of insisting that only order exists,from the scenario citation you yourself provided.

I was only pointing out that taking advice from fiction on how chaos/order are related would never work. And that adages are silly. And, to be clear: no chaos exists within works of fiction. Kirk plays every game in exactly the way he needs for the show to fill the spot between ad breaks.

MishkaKatyusha wrote:


Was pointing out that you were seeing order where none exists. You can't just "and thus, order!" things into sensibility. My statements align with Chaos Theory because physics are not order, and conflating the two terms is unhelpful to both subjects.

MishkaKatyusha wrote:

real / fake things.

More misunderstanding. Fake, in the context I was using it, does not mean "does not exist", just "does not exist in nature". Compare your example of Evolution with Artificial Selection - one is real (chaos!), one is fake (order and intent!), but both exist.

Cars are fake, the Internet is fake - both exist and are ordered, neither is well-suited for chaos because cars need smooth surfaces and the Internet needs high signal low noise. Absolutely doesn't speak to the legitimacy of the technology.

So yeah I have no idea where you were going with that but it sure sounded like a wild ride. Thought experiments are fun. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.as you dutifully cut out,i said "it kind of reminds me" which is to say,perhaps more properly than you put.that the fiction as depicted seemed to suit my fancy for a "spur of the moment" and "what suits the need" non-ordered approach,to borrow some colloqial "thats just how i roll".and as again you failed to acknowledge.making a statement about a specific part of something as an antithesis to something else "kirk used plenty of order" etc. and then claiming that the whole thing was unreal,etc. is an unfortunate bit of shooting your mind in the foot (i hoped i used the phrase right),as you killed your own antihesis.

and yes i do recognize that those two statements were likely connected in the colloqial language,but you ahve to realize,we were both in logical debate by that point

also,this was the entire statement,which you shamefully cut up to attempt to highlight a flaw where non existed

(thus indicating chaos as the primordial state,or,that from which creation,and thus order,emerges,so thus,order comes from modulated chaos)"

if youl actually look abit closer at the bold text and study the english.that is an entirely proper way,albeit abit fancy,of claiming that one thing and another are so closely linked that one is "birthed" from the other,classical examples of this are:

"i turned on the generator,and thus i had power"

"i beaned that guy with the baseball,and thus he was knocked out"

"i shot that zombie,and thus it became deceased"

2. complete illogical jibberish,nothing unreal exists,

and you want to know something worse?even if i am to take your statement as literal and true,following from the logic you presented,you,me,and everything that exists by the hand of mankind,including both yours and my conception and creation,does not exist in nature.yet everything exists in nature,just look at how houses gradually decay into the ground,squirrels in the backyard,etc.

3.you have to understand,when your in a logical debate,colloqial english may be used to initiate or perhaps interlude between debate segments (because its valuable for bringing up a concept).but you do not get the prvilege of using it to refute,disprove,or prove a claim

so in that context,and the only one recognized for this debate,fake means unreal,nonexistent,and so on

your definition of the proper meaning of a colloqial word is your opinion only.and while you have a right to beleive your own opinion,to insist that everyone else beleives it is a generalization and thus untrue

you keep on mixing up logic and colloqial english,please dont do that,lgoical debates have rules for a reason

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Aand off we go.

I cut out many things, because I don't need to quote them. You know what you have written, people reading the thread (if any are left) can see what you have written. I'm not selectively quoting for fun, I'm avoiding repeating the same stuff and merely quoting to show which part of my reply corresponds to which part of your post.

I can guarantee I wasn't wasting time on "logical debate" on this forum. I was typing words and blahblahing about Star Trek because it seemed fun and I was (initially) interested in perspectives. I certainly wasn't opening a full debate by talking about Star Trek and religion (that would be insane since I have no interest in either) on page 1 of some rando post about "curousity". Your opening post was asking for opinion and I gave you that, at no point was I presenting anything 'scientifically' - Wikipedia exists, etc. Anything else you took from my tone or language is entirely your reading.

You're welcome to take my words as literal and true if that's the context you think I was making them within. If you think that I believe squirrels don't exist, I am fine with that. For everyone else it's pretty clear that I was discussing the human need to find patterns where none provably exist. I continue to disagree with your use of the word "thus" (also because zombies are already deceased, thus nothing), but pushing that point any further than cheap jokes has dipped off the level of attention that I had for this thread. Just like Star Trek, my only purpose for bringing that up at all was to point out that frames of reference are hard. A case pretty easily proven given the path this is going.

I will always skip past any 'rules' that people attempt to push onto a conversation after the fact. I am fairly honest, rational and largely will spend as many brain-cells composing replies as the poster that I'm replying to - and I'm up-front when things are getting silly. I'll even stick to the guidance that legit authority (Linden Lab) has in place here. Beyond that, good luck in getting me to change my tone or engage with you differently.


Link to post
Share on other sites

honest?yes i beleive you are

rational?i dont really think your rational,mainly because you seem to beleive this isnt serious


3 points of order

1.you do need to quote them on very few occasions,one of them being when you are deliberately only quoting small amounts of something,to drag it out of context to attempt to make it look like a logical flaw where there is none

2.your generalizing again

you cannot guarantee that absolutely everyone else will see something some way,so thus,no,you were just filling your sentence for some reason

the human need to find patterns where none provably exist?by who's proof?yours?there are many peices of art rl where an uninterested person would see meaningless noise.where the more sophisticated would see a beautiful pattern,thus,this point is entirely disproven(note i am not claiming with this that i myself am sophisticated,a sophisticated person doesnt make typos all day and go on at length like this)

3.spending as many brain cells as the poster your replying too

again,this statement functionally disproves itself as you have no way at all of figuring the iq,or exact brain cell amount of the person your talking with.

and both your opnion of "whats intelligent" and "what is silly" is entirely subjective,I.E. your opinion,and thus entirely invalid for any other purpose than to "toot your own horn" as it were.also further backed up by the fact that you are,or were,trying to participate in a growing thought experiment with colloqial english


ADDENDUM: i was using that as a byword for the often problematic notion of killing the undead critter hitherto known as "zombie".perhaps i shouldve said "non functioning"


on a side note.i havent meant nor intended any hostility,nor perceived any from this conversation.im mostly a hermit for reasons which should be obvious by now,so i have a habit of talking alot when something sparks my interest

Link to post
Share on other sites


i sure didnt expect to have that asked,as this isnt the forum section for it,but never the less

integer is for alot of different things,names of items,spin properties,and so on.

it helps tell the script what something does

here is a line for example's sake from a script im working on,it helps show some of what integer does

vector placement = <45.0, 0.0, 10.0>;vector velocity = ZERO_VECTOR; rotation spin; integer startParam = 10;integer listen_handle;
Link to post
Share on other sites

MishkaKatyusha wrote:

go watch movies about confucius,or perhaps socrates,and youll soon understand

Should I watch them in ancient Chinese and Greek, with which languages I have less than a passing knowledge, but might make more sense to me than your abysmal attempts to express difficult concepts in a language which you are obviously ill-equipped to do,  in an online environment with which you appear to have little familiarity.


MishkaKatyusha wrote:

and also,your opinion is confined to you,while you have a right to it,insisting that everyone else beleives it is a false generalization

The above, and the following, is not an opinion; you are making very little sense and have created a thread in the wrong forum. Again.

***Call me when you have the faintest clue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I prefer to teach myself from books and online resources... BUT a mentor can get you over humps that can really slow you down while self-teaching.

I don't need to be a 'student', 'apprentice' or otherwise, but I could use a supportive community and loose 'mentorship' to accelerate the learning curve. Sometimes I get stuck on stupid things, just because I'm unaware of the workflow, or tools that can be used.

That's all I need though, is to be pointed in the right direction. Its too bad that most people are hoarders of knowledge and simply do not want to help you at all in Second Life (from my experience)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1961 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...