![]() |
Personally prefer the Java-style of declaring variables/types than your current GS3 way, no need to carry over how we currently use temp to GS3 as it just adds unnecessary code.
type variable; Being able to create global functions would be cool too, I imagine GS3 would be more flexible in some way that we can modify built-in functions? I.e. PHP Code:
|
Are there any benefits to adopting GS3 or is just change for the sake of change?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I would also prefer something similar to java like jerrets example. But just like dusty I am biased because I frequently use java.
|
Also curious how this would look like in GS3.
Weapon: Example PHP Code:
Weapon: GUIExample PHP Code:
|
PHP Code:
PHP Code:
We finish the scripted level editor by combining some of the best scripted/online editors, and convert it to GS3. This can be available online and we are also able to convert it to other scripting languages to import it into other development platforms. So we can also possibly offer new offline editors in the future. So there are several additional advantages: Graal script will not be a black box anymore, it will possible to bring it to faster scripting engines and platforms. It will also be more close to other scripting languages, so you your knowledge will be more interesting for "real life" purposes, and more programmers from outside of Graal could be able to script in GS3. A lot of head-aches with variable lookups and such things are gone. For script help normally /scripthelp is working quite fine, all new functionality is automatically added to /scripthelp or to the list you get by starting Graal with the "-listscriptfunctions" command-line option. The documentation on wiki.graal.net could be reorganized a little bit after we introduce GS3, although most global functions and GUI objects will be the same. |
Quote:
PHP Code:
|
I like the changes you're considering quite a bit, but the syntax definitely feels clunky. Is there any reason you couldn't just do C-style variable types?
Also, is it necessary to keep "function"? Why not just use the return type: PHP Code:
|
I do not want to reject change just for doing it, but Dusty's post captures my thoughts practically verbatim. I don't mind a new coding language, especially if there will be visible benefits to the game, but I would really like to see thorough documentation on this if other languages like Lua will not be used. It wouldn't be wise to just release it with poor instruction on how the code functions with proper syntax and examples, very much like how GS2 was released. You should be wanting to bring in more coders, not making them know GS2, then go learn other coding fundamentals from other languages (declaring variables, when to use void, etc.), then come back to Graal and implement GS2 and guess at the structure of GS3 using a different syntax knowledge from another language, then have no idea where to proceed since there is no trace of documentation anywhere.
Quote:
My 2 cents, but I think I will stick to GS2 unless GS3 is properly documented. Though, I will say I do think heading in this direction is a good thing. The timing is just a bit off as well as the odd/clunky syntax styles. Just rip off of another language's syntax or use an already existing language fully capable of attracting new developers *cough*Lua*cough*. |
So technically you can connect to PC Graal via Browser with a proper Login?
|
Quote:
|
I agree with fowlplay4 and Gos_pira. I much prefer a Java-like syntax. The type declarations of the proposed GS3 just looks clunky and is needlessly different than common languages.
One feature that I would love to see is proper closures. Anonymous functions are great but don't maintain any context. This would make utility libraries extremely versatile. For example, a remove_if() method that takes a list and predicate function: PHP Code:
|
I think this looks great. I don't mind the syntax since it's basically ActionScript.
I like the types idea and I like the dictionaries since that's the only thing I ever used the dynamic variable names for anyway. Are you going to get rid of with() completely, or just with gui objects? How can we define particle effects without typing a lot? My feature request is some way to share code between serverside and clientside without copy-pasting, which I don't think you can do right now. Maybe the join() changes will make that possible? |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright (C) 1998-2019 Toonslab All Rights Reserved.