Quote Originally Posted by Gleeok View Post
I don't read/write from ZASM bytecode at all. It's all separated. ZScript is only 32 bit integers, so this best maps to int by default. Having AS to be responsible for maintaining legacy zscript bytecode was never a goal, and I suspect never will be, but even though I'm not going to do it, maybe someone else will.

AS can work with native types easily, this includes pointers, primitives, and structs. ZScript can only handle one type: long.


You're thinking about it the wrong way:
The truth is nobody really wants (or has enough experience) to work with the ZC code because the reality of breaking computability is such a huge burden that most people are crushed by it instantly when they realize how difficult simple refactoring or other trivial things could become. In addition, we're basically running out of useful things to add to it due to complexity of working with the old systems. I'm not going to be able to get to a ZC 3.0, the best I can do is clean up some of the allegro stuff and replace it one thing at a time. You guys are pretty much the only new people who are working on ZC right now. Surely you realized by now that it's way more complicated than it needs to be, and that for all the cool stuff and good work you guys have done on 2.5x the amount of time spent for very minor improvements is sort of disproportional. If the next-gen of ZC developers want to do things differently, or even the same, then they should have that option, and I'll support them. Saffith has moved on, and the truth is I never really came back. I'm still semi-retired, and will probably stay that way for a while; I just have too many other things to do. At least Dark Dragon is currently around for the time being.

AS is something that is documented, works well, an anybody can work with without too much trouble. It's more for the future of ZC rather than the past, to put it one way. We won't even add it until 2.6 so it doesn't interfere with 2.5+.
What I read out of this, is that the plan to have this new system compile legacy scripts is dead, so, we should still be working on the ZScript parser for 2.54, 2.55. Correct?

If you truly feel that you are going to be passing the torch to us, then you might want to have a pow-wow with us and we can discuss our own goals. I wanted to work n stuff like this for 3.0, but I also wanted to do a substancial amount more, and while that may sound fantastic, the reality is that it will take time to get there. I feel that 2.54, w.55, and 2.6xc should be a slow migration away from some of the nastier elements, but not a dramatic shift.

If you get an AS implementation that we can use in one of those later shifts, fantastic. It just seems to me that we're falling back on the 'doesn't need compatibility' model, which is fine, for a wholly new ZC version.

I would frankly rather see you devote some time to the drawing stuff, and to the ffc stuff--specifically, user called ffcs--and such, sot hat we can integrate those. I would like to be able to offer something new before the Sommer, so that we attract some users to it, when they have free time, and revitalise the whole bloody thing, as the present userbase is fading away into oblivion partly from the static feeling of the programme.

I suppose the truly twisted thing, is that I'm not intimidated by the sources. I sort of feel at home, and comfortable with them, which is why every time we have a debate like this, I lose my mind.

I have no idea what your definition of 2.6 is any longer, but it is sounding more, and more, as if you mean 3.x; that is, more major changes than what we are even discussing now. Is that right?

Did you foresee two releases before this is added at all? DD was sort of going in circles with some of his planned parser changes, waiting to learn when you were planning to introduce this component, and expecting that it would be script-compatible with all present user scripts. These are the types of things that need absolute clarity.

At least you can see that we're doing something with this, and we didn;t just volunteer to work on 2.54without following through; but the continual change of plan, change of focus, and such, is also putting a pretty big burden on us, to regularly rewrite, re-merge, and changes things that we already completed. I want to solidify some plans, and I need to know if there is going to be a problem in your eyes about some of our plans, or if we should just be doing what we think is best at this stage, with some assurance that the codebase and our changes aren't going to be changed again, in a radical manner that undermines them; and that we won;t be required to rewrrite large sections for a third time, respectively.

I would have already had the merge done, if not for this; and beyond that, my own changes are so extensive, and through so many files, that handling an incremental merge is a tremendous nightmare. The fact that I am at all willing to do that should emphasise my dedication, but I have points where this diverts to bicker mode, and I just cannot care enough to do a blasted thing.

I stalled out again, because of this. I see this going back and forth, and people who are no in any way involved with the development work arguing for or against it, and I don;t feel like working on it. We need to solidify the plan for what is going in the next two releases. The modernised ZScript parser is very close to done, and we can use that. I feel that we should use that, and when you have a working parser, we can look at a way of making it work, and cross-compiling to it, or whatever we want to do.

At present, for canonical ZC, you are the only person with authority to make decisions. If you don;t want to do that, and want to work with us on deciding what belongs in it, then we need to have a discussion on that elsewhere, because I sincerely have no idea what is happening, and I'm not going to pour countless hours into this without knowing the direction. Your definition of 2.5+ is needed here, as I don;t grasp it, and you previously referred to what we were calling 3.0 as 2.6, and I am still very much against any radical engine change, or rewrite being in the 2.xx family.

I'm not willing to work with fully arbitrary version numbering. This is mad enough, without a numbering scheme with no sanity.

In the meanwhile, I need an answer from you in the npcs and items thread, and I'd like to see the script drawing integrated--and we need to discuss that in detail.