getstringkeys() and loadvars()

[Inverness]

Originally,

("test" @ "pancake") is returning a string because first part is string. And this."testpancake" wouldn't work obviously.
(@ "test" @ "pancake") is returning a variable name because first part was empty.

Though it seems like Stefan has compensated for that now since doing that in a variable works either way. Either that or the reason it was originally done was forgotten by me.

If Stefan could tell us whats up that would be nice.

[cbk1994]

I don't like how Stefan makes up for things that people make errors in; e.g. profiles as strings. I had no idea they were actually supposed to be objects. If he hadn't done that, I would have of course used the object.

[Inverness]

Its why I want a GS3 that is more stricter and more Object-Oriented and doesn't allow any of the old GS1.

[TheStan]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Its why I want a GS3 that is more stricter and more Object-Oriented and doesn't allow any of the old GS1.

orly?

[DrakilorP2P]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Its why I want a GS3 that is more stricter and more Object-Oriented and doesn't allow any of the old GS1.

I'd rather have something well defined and documented, like Lua, Squirrel, Python, GameMonkey, Lisp, some dialect of BASIC, Perl, awk, ECMAScript, Java, PHP, Ruby or Tcl.

Originally Posted by TheStan

orly?

I am thoroughly offended by this horrible abuse of not only the English language, but some cultural references as well.

[TheStan]

Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P

I am thoroughly offended by this horrible abuse of not only the English language, but some cultural references as well.

Just kidding there Drakilor.

[Codein]

Originally Posted by TheStan

Just kidding there Drakilor.

Everyone seems to be offended these days xD. I personally use something like this:

PHP Code:

this.("prefix_" @ varname) = "foo"; 


[Inverness]

Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P

I'd rather have something well defined and documented, like Lua, Squirrel, Python, GameMonkey, Lisp, some dialect of BASIC, Perl, awk, ECMAScript, Java, PHP, Ruby or Tcl.

If Stefan were to use a well established language; which is what I would prefer, then I say to use Stackless Python.

Not allowed to give you a URL (most retarded rule ever) so search on google for "why stackless" and pick first result.

Of course if Stefan wanted to use this then he would need to be implementing some sort of security features and all that stuff. The source code is available for that.

I don't think Stefan has time to do anything like that however, even if I think it would be beneficial in the long run.

[cbk1994]

GS2 is a pretty awesome language; it's very easy to learn (compared to other languages), and you can do a lot of stuff much easier than with other languages. While the price may be speed of running the code, it's still a very good starting language, and I think it is fine for Graal. I don't see any need to change it to a completely different language, just listen to some of the suggestions (**custom objects**, catchevent, etc).

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

GS2 is a pretty awesome language; it's very easy to learn (compared to other languages), and you can do a lot of stuff much easier than with other languages. While the price may be speed of running the code, it's still a very good starting language, and I think it is fine for Graal. I don't see any need to change it to a completely different language, just listen to some of the suggestions (**custom objects**, catchevent, etc).

Python is an awesome language, easy to learn compared to others, and you can do a lot of stuff much easier than with other languages. And there aren't weird things like only built-in variables being case sensitive and odd leftover functions for compatibility, variables without prefix being global instead of local to the function like in most other languages.

[xXziroXx]

If I wanted to work with Python, then I'd just... do something.
If I wanted to work with GScript, which I do obviously since I'm still here, then I'd go to Graal.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

If I wanted to work with Python, then I'd just... do something.
If I wanted to work with GScript, which I do obviously since I'm still here, then I'd go to Graal.

It looks like the fact that Stackless Python could be embedded into Graal went right over your head.

[xXziroXx]

Originally Posted by Inverness

It looks like the fact that Stackless Python could be embedded into Graal went right over your head.

Nice one, wise ass. GraalScript does the job well enough, there's no need for a second language to be embedded or replace the original one with it.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

Nice one, wise ass. GraalScript does the job well enough, there's no need for a second language to be embedded or replace the original one with it.

Yes, GraalScript works, however, Stackless Python offers certain advantages that aren't found elsewhere. You should Google what I said earlier. And I also already stated some reasons for wanting a more solid scripting language.

[xXziroXx]

Wanting a more solid scripting language is one thing, but to remove/replace what everyone are already used too (and have been for many years now) is another.