Graal Forums

Page 1 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Graal Forums (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/index.php)

- Announcements (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=240)

- - Gs3 (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134268072)

Admins

04-12-2013 03:24 PM

Gs3

Hello Graalians,

We have just started the work on a new scripting project and want your ideas and feedback about it. The idea is to create new Graal Script version (GS3) which will make scripts faster and more fit for bigger projects.

The idea

We plan to introduce 'types' to Graal script. This first means some more work for scripters but it also has some dramatic advantages:
- Scripts can run faster
- More reliable because it will complain when a variable has not been declared or is used incorrectly. This is important when doing bigger projects.
- We can possibly convert the scripts to other languages (C++, Javascript etc.) so it can possibly run in a browser in the future
- Code will be more readable, you don't have to guess what kind of variables need to be passed to a function or is returned by a function

The progress

We are already working on a converter which helps to convert scripts from GS2 to GS3. So a lot of work will be lifted from the programmer, and you can also use this tool for testing how the new scripting will look like.
Additional following things can be important to know:
- existing scripts will still run, we don't force the new syntax and semantic, but it can be interesting for server-side logic and also new client-side code
- just add a //#GS3 line to your script to use the new syntax and semantic
- some syntax of the new Graal script is already supported but currently ignored (like var statements)

Examples

Functions:
Old:

PHP Code:


		
			
function getAddition(a, b) {

  temp.result = a + b;

  return temp.result;

}

New:

PHP Code:


		
			
function getAddition(a:number, b:number):number {

  var result:number = a + b;

  return result;

}

Gui:
Old:

PHP Code:


		
			
new GuiControlProfile("Games_Msg_BackProfile") {

  modal = false;

}

New:

PHP Code:


		
			
var profile:GuiControlProfile = new GuiControlProfile("Games_Msg_BackProfile");

profile.modal = false;

Type declarations:
Old:

PHP Code:


		
			
function saveOptions() {

  temp.options.age = 24;

  temp.options.gender = "female";

  temp.options.city = "Dallas";

  temp.options.savevars("options.txt", 0);

}

New:

PHP Code:


		
			
class Options extends TGraalVar {

  var age : int;

  var gender : string;

  var city : string;

}

function saveOptions():void {

  var options:Options = new Options();

  options.age = 24;

  options.gender = "female";

  options.city = "Dallas";

  options.savevars("options.txt", 0);

}

What is changing

- You need to declare the type of variables: var myvar: int;
Available types: string, boolean, int, number, void, type[] (for arrays), dictionary<string, int>
- Use "var" declarations instead of temp.
- You can also declare variables of a weapon or NPC at the beginning of the script using var myvar: type;
- The "with" statement is removed and the "new" statement is single-line, you need to call addcontrol() manually
- The dictionary type is needed if you want to access variables with dynamic variable name like this.mydictionary.("start" @ 1)
- Flexible number of function parameters can be done using function(first:int, ... params) (params is a dictionary)
- Global variables can only be accessed directly if you provide a global declaration or if you use findobject("objectname")
- You need to call this.myfunction() instead of myfunction()
- join() works more like an include in C++, there is no this.join anymore
- You can declare new classes (also called structures, types) inline like class MyClass extend TStaticVar; weapons are automatically extending TServerWeapon, NPCs are automatically extending TServerNPC
- The for (member: array) syntax needs to be changed to for (member in array)

Your ideas

As you can see the new Graal script is basically adding type declarations and changing a few smaller things to be more compatible with other languages. Please tell us if you like the new scripting or not, and if you have some stuff which you would like to see in the new scripting language, such as private variables or getter and setter functions. We have just started the project so everything is still possible. We can imagine there are a lot of questions regarding compatiblity and similar.

Hezzy002

04-12-2013 03:49 PM

Why don't you use a popular scripting language like Lua, because there's a massive library of documentation and tutorials for it, and a massive group of people who actually know it already? And LuaJIT is way faster than anything you can develop in-house.

There are also dozens of things that should be a higher priority than this.

Crono

04-12-2013 03:49 PM

will players notice a difference? do you think we'll see new features thanks to this upgrade? :}

Crow	04-12-2013 04:24 PM

Your type syntax looks awful, I wouldn't ever want to use that. Also, one major good point about scripting languages is the lack of type definitions, at least in my opinion. Go with Hezzy's suggestions, use Lua, Python or something similar. Some types of calculations done in Lua can even be as fast as pure C code, or so I've heard.

Gos_pira

04-12-2013 04:47 PM

The C# syntax is nice. I never liked the LUA syntax. I'm for defining variable types and have a more object oriented language though. :)

Crow	04-12-2013 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gos_pira (Post 1716082)

The C# syntax is nice. I never liked the LUA syntax. I'm for defining variable types and have a more object oriented language though. :)

Please, Lua. Not LUA. D:

Emera

04-12-2013 05:26 PM

I'm not learning another language when the language you have right now can more or less be edited and given just about whatever functionality you want. Why make the community learn a new syntax, especially when the scripting community on here isn't very big.

Crow	04-12-2013 06:19 PM

Because a syntax isn't difficult to learn, especially not Lua's.

smirt362

04-12-2013 06:31 PM

Masking support. Lets get some classic SNES effects on Graal. I still want to make some crazy stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/EB4zAQc.png

Will we also be getting a new Gani and Level editor as well?

DustyPorViva

04-12-2013 06:51 PM

Is this really the best time to do this? Development on Graal is dwindling; there's hardly any scripters left. Do you really want to potentially isolate the few scripters left? GS2 was never documented that well, especially when new things were added. I still have to hunt around the forums looking for anything added in the last couple of years because it's not documented anywhere else. GS1 isn't properly phased out still, yet many people still use it in levels because we still don't have any updated tools. And with Testbed gone there's not even a place available to practice scripting.

edit: I guess since it isn't mandatory it isn't that bad... but I also imagine it's not going to be widely used either. Going to be honest, you're probably going to be the only person using it. I can't say I like the declaration syntax either.

scriptless

04-12-2013 07:32 PM

First, are servers currently updated to support this?

I notice some things in the new GS3 that I catch myself trying to do in GS2.. so I am glad to see these changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smirt362 (Post 1716089)

Masking support. Lets get some classic SNES effects on Graal. I still want to make some crazy stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/EB4zAQc.png

Will we also be getting a new Gani and Level editor as well?

Oh, I would love masking support... that would be awesome..

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva (Post 1716094)

Yeah but unfortunately us Mac OS X 10.6 users have no level editor, and using macports with gonstruct seemed to get me no where at all. So I can't even develop levels right now due to the lack of tools. There really needs to be an SDK kit..

BlueMelon

04-12-2013 07:33 PM

I develop on graal for the simplicity of the scripting language that is used...

This type of syntax would not fit well with graal scripters/developers introducing types makes it look more like you're building software. What I like about GS2 is the use of temp. this. thiso, etc.

Lua on the other hand is fast/flexible. Lua is a great language.

callimuc

04-12-2013 08:30 PM

you should introduce it on one server which could be set up like testbed, but supported by you/graal. it also should be well documented so people could try it out and feedback could be given

scriptless

04-12-2013 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMelon (Post 1716097)

Thats the only thing I do not like. I do not want to have to declare the type before assigning it. Thats what made graal so fun to develop for (for me).. But the example for how he did the GUI and assigned the modal, is exactly how my instinct tries to do.. if i assign something to an object. i want to be able to change it that way. =/

dylan

04-12-2013 08:54 PM

Aren't you a little late on April Fools? It's the twelfth. :[

fowlplay4

04-12-2013 08:56 PM

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:


		
			
class Options extends TGraalVar { 
  int age;
  string gender;
  string city;
}

function void saveOptions() { 
  Options options = new Options(); 
  options.age = 24; 
  options.gender = "female"; 
  options.city = "Dallas"; 
  options.savevars("options.txt", 0); 
}

function number addNumbers(number a, number b) {
  return a + b;
}

MattKan

04-12-2013 09:35 PM

Are there any benefits to adopting GS3 or is just change for the sake of change?

DustyPorViva

04-12-2013 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fowlplay4 (Post 1716101)

Personally prefer the Java-style of declaring variables/types

Ditto, but I felt biased saying that since I only know Java.

scriptless

04-12-2013 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattKan (Post 1716103)

Are there any benefits to adopting GS3 or is just change for the sake of change?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

dramatic advantages:
- Scripts can run faster
- More reliable because it will complain when a variable has not been declared or is used incorrectly. This is important when doing bigger projects.
- We can possibly convert the scripts to other languages (C++, Javascript etc.) so it can possibly run in a browser in the future
- Code will be more readable, you don't have to guess what kind of variables need to be passed to a function or is returned by a function

fowlplay4

04-12-2013 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattKan (Post 1716103)

Are there any benefits to adopting GS3 or is just change for the sake of change?

According to Stefan: Faster, will run better on other platforms, forcing people to declare variables/types will make code more self-documenting (You can see that in the options example) and also more stricter so perhaps stuff won't break as easy.

Cubical

04-13-2013 12:08 AM

I would also prefer something similar to java like jerrets example. But just like dusty I am biased because I frequently use java.

fowlplay4

04-13-2013 01:14 AM

Also curious how this would look like in GS3.

Weapon: Example

PHP Code:


		
			
function onActionServerSide() {
  if (params[0] == "hello") {
    player.triggerclient("weapon", this.name, "goodbye");
  }
}

//#CLIENTSIDE

function onCreated() {
  triggerserver("gui", this.name, "hello");
}

function onActionClientSide() {
  if (params[0] == "goodbye") {
    player.chat = "*fistbump*";
  }
}

Also if there's no 'with' (I still think there should be) how would this work out:

Weapon: GUIExample

PHP Code:


		
			
//#CLIENTSIDE
function onCreated() {
  new GuiWindowCtrl("Example") {
    profile = GuiBlueButtonProfile;
    x = y = width = height = 100;
    new GuiButtonCtrl("ButtonExample") {
      profile = GuiBlueButtonProfile;
      x = y = width = height = 10;
    }
    new GuiButtonCtrl("ButtonExample2") {
      profile = GuiBlueButtonProfile;
      x = y = width = height = 30;
    }  
  }
}

Admins

04-13-2013 02:26 AM

PHP Code:


		
			
function onActionServerSide(action:string):void {
  if (action == "hello")
    player.triggerclient("weapon", this.name, "goodbye");
}

//#CLIENTSIDE

function onCreated():void {
  triggerserver("gui", this.name, "hello");
}

function onActionClientSide(action:string) {
  if (action == "goodbye")
    player.chat = "*fistbump*";
}

PHP Code:


		
			
//#CLIENTSIDE
function onCreated():void {
  var window:GuiWindowCtrl = new GuiWindowCtrl("Example");
  window.profile = findobject("GuiBlueButtonProfile");
  window.x = window.y = window.width = window.height = 100;

  var button:GuiButtonCtrl = new GuiButtonCtrl("ButtonExample");
  button.profile = findobject("GuiBlueButtonProfile");
  button.x = button.y = button.width = button.height = 10;
  window.addcontrol(button);

  button = new GuiButtonCtrl("ButtonExample2");
  button.profile = findobject("GuiBlueButtonProfile");
  button.x = button.y = button.width = button.height = 30;
  window.addcontrol(button);
}

The idea with tools is this:
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.

Gos_pira

04-13-2013 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fowlplay4 (Post 1716101)

PHP Code:


		
			
class Options extends TGraalVar { 

  int age;

  string gender;

  string city;

}



function void saveOptions() { 

  Options options = new Options(); 

  options.age = 24; 

  options.gender = "female"; 

  options.city = "Dallas"; 

  options.savevars("options.txt", 0); 

}



function number addNumbers(number a, number b) {

  return a + b;

}

I'd personally prefer:

PHP Code:


		
			
public class Options : TGraalVar 

{ 

  int age;

  string gender;

  string city;

}



public class Npc

{

    public void saveOptions()

    { 

        Options options = new Options(); 

        options.age = 24; 

        options.gender = "female"; 

        options.city = "Dallas"; 

        options.savevars("options.txt", 0); 

    }



    public float addNumbers(float a, float b)

    {

        return a + b;

    }

}

cbk1994

04-13-2013 03:30 AM

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:


		
			
// double return value
double mean(double a, double b) {
  return (a + b) / 2;
}

// no return value
void log(string message) {
  echo(message);
}

// returns something, "def" is a type that can hold anything
def anything() {
  def[] array = [player, this, "a"];
  return array[int(random(0, array.size()))];
}

This syntax would be more comfortable for a lot of amateur and professional programmers.

devilsknite1

04-13-2013 03:52 AM

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:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716118)

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.

Back to the not wanting to drive coders away part... That's all fine, except if a new developer wants to jump in on GS3, it's a bit of a jumbled mess with having to know GS2, then scanning and hoping that the proper syntax with examples are listed in /scripthelp. Most of the time it's just command(int, string, string) without any guidance as to what the integer and strings are supposed to be. If that's changed it will help a lot, otherwise you're going to have a lot of wiki editing to do.

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*.

Elk	04-13-2013 03:56 AM

So technically you can connect to PC Graal via Browser with a proper Login?

Gos_pira

04-13-2013 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elk (Post 1716125)

So technically you can connect to PC Graal via Browser with a proper Login?

I think he means that porting scripts between script engines would be easier with these changes. Unless I just misunderstood what you meant.

Gamerkid7

04-13-2013 05:05 AM

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:


		
			
function void removeIDs(int [B]rem_id[/B]) {

    remove_if(this.idlist, function bool (int obj_id) {

       if (obj_id == [B]rem_id[/B])

           return true;

       return false;

    });

    UpdateDiplay();  

}

Then the code for remove_if only has to be maintained in one place and it would be a lot easier to figure out what a piece of code is doing from the functions being called.

DrakilorP2P

04-13-2013 02:41 PM

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?

fowlplay4

04-13-2013 05:03 PM

I still don't see why there's no 'with' statement in GS3. It helps clean up code and is very useful in GUI Building and other object work.

I.e. How I've used it in GS2:

PHP Code:


		
			
temp.window = addWindow("Example");

with (temp.window) {

  this.title = "Example Window";

  with (addButton(this, "Button")) {



  }

  with (addButton(this, "Button2")) {



  }

}



function addWindow(obj_id) {

  temp.window = new GuiWindowCtrl(obj_id);

  return temp.window;

}



function addButton(parent, obj_id) {

  temp.button = new GuiButtonCtrl(obj_id);

  parent.addcontrol(temp.button);

  return temp.button;

}

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsknite1 (Post 1716124)

but I would really like to see thorough documentation on this if other languages like Lua will not be used.

Even if he implemented Lua that isn't going to change the fact he still needs to document how the language works with and manipulates the Graal engine. A lot of GS2's current function usage isn't going to change that much in GS3 by the looks of it.

Loriel

04-13-2013 06:01 PM

I'm a bit of a PL nerd now rather than invested into a gscript codebase so I'm all for type system change for change's sake here. :)

I'm curious about first-class functions/closures, and what kind of polymorphism you're going to support. Also will there be generic user-defined types or is that only for dictionaries? Are you going for an llvm backend eventually?

Edit: Function-local type inference?

Edit: Also what happens when a gs2 script triggers a gs3 scripts and sends along arguments with the wrong types?

Loriel

04-13-2013 06:01 PM

Also **** y'all, varname:type is the best syntax

Pandar

04-13-2013 07:34 PM

...too easy.

Hezzy002

04-13-2013 09:41 PM

I think you should just use LuaJIT because it's fast, commonly used (More free developers for you!!). Whatever you make will be worse in every way.

Tim_Rocks

04-14-2013 03:45 AM

http://i46.tinypic.com/2v1noep.jpg

Draenin

04-14-2013 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

http://replygif.net/i/939

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

This first means some more work for scripters

http://replygif.net/i/827

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

Scripts can run faster

http://replygif.net/i/726

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

More reliable because it will complain when a variable has not been declared or is used incorrectly.

http://replygif.net/i/628

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

We can possibly convert the scripts to other languages (C++, Javascript etc.)

http://replygif.net/i/193

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

so it can possibly run in a browser in the future

http://replygif.net/i/837

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

We are already working on a converter which helps to convert scripts from GS2 to GS3. So a lot of work will be lifted from the programmer, and you can also use this tool for testing how the new scripting will look like.

http://replygif.net/i/280

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

existing scripts will still run, we don't force the new syntax and semantic, but it can be interesting for server-side logic and also new client-side code

http://replygif.net/i/218

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

just add a //#GS3 line to your script to use the new syntax and semantic

http://replygif.net/i/386

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 1716075)

everything is still possible

http://replygif.net/i/149

Fulg0reSama

04-14-2013 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draenin (Post 1716205)

-Images-

This was my reaction in a nutshell minus the browser statement reaction image.

Loriel

04-14-2013 07:57 AM

I dunno how offline development would even work anymore with half your systems running on the server. It'd be great to be able to deploy completely isolated dev environments loclly so you could use stuff like decentralized source control without bending over backwards, and it's not like in tyool 2013 the npcserver is such a trade secret that it can't be integrated into the client. Lots of multiplayer games with a singleplayer mode basically ship the game mechanics if not the networking bits of their server in the client. shrug.

Crono

04-14-2013 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loriel (Post 1716211)

I dunno how offline development would even work anymore

it won't ;[

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Page 1 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page