horace grant wrote:

Whether Python is or isn't a nicer language depends on your point of view, so I won't debate that.

However, the "sand-boxing" as presented in PyPy is very crude and will do nothing to fix the issues with Python in Blender. The major problem with Python in Blender is not that it can access files "in general" (as that is a REQUIREMENT of import / export scripts for example) but that I can access EVERYTHING Python can from every execution context. That is, I might only want Python to have access to other elements in the scene (say for a rig or controlling a particle simulation) but, so long as Python can access files (which, as I said, is *required*) everything executing Python code can.

In Lua, AngelScript, Falcon, TinyScheme, etc it is possible to only expose to the execution context that which you want it to have access to. If you don't want it to read/write files - don't give it the necessary modules/functions. This is not possible in Python (everything is accessible everywhere) and the sand-boxing in PyPy is an "all or nothing" affair. Either you can access the file system or you cannot. No way to only restrict access in only some scripts (say those included in the untrusted .blend file) and not others (those installed by the end-user in the .blender/scripts directory). Not to mention the performance issues with the method PyPy users (dual processes - with all "sand-boxed" data needing to be marshalled between the Blender/Python process and it's sand-boxed proxy).

Sorry, Python is designed in such a way as to make securing it an unlikely scenario.