User Tag List

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 115

Thread: AngelScript: The Revenge

  1. #41
    Here lies mero. Died by his own dumbassitude.
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    929
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    5,527
    Level
    23
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    13.96%
    AS has it's own limitations

  2. #42
    Is this the end?
    ZC Developer
    Saffith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Age
    41
    Posts
    3,389
    Mentioned
    178 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    6,451
    Level
    24
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    73.19%
    Well, there are limitations of the language itself and limitations of the implementation. In ZScript's case, there are plenty of each. Whatever else might be said about them, AngelScript, Lua, and Python all have a lot fewer of the former.

  3. #43
    The Timelord
    QDB Manager
    ZC Developer

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Prydon Academy
    Posts
    1,396
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    4,781
    Level
    21
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    73.04%
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimentio View Post
    Ah. I vote on making it as close to ZScript as possible, without it's limitations.

    Actually, that syntax is like ZScript. The reason you haven;t seen some of that, is because the parser doesn't handle all of the available C syntax that it could. There has been some improvement in that area. There's very little proper C syntax that it could not handle--or really, handle without a lot of work. It could theoretically do anything that a full C parser could do. Cpp syntax is something else, as it continually morphs with each new revision. There are things that cpp allows that I didn't know about until recently, and not all compilers may support them (read, CPP11), and yet others that it does not support, but compilers may (e.g. variable array declaration, supported by gcc).

    How the hell would array pointers translate? That's a fundamental question, and concern.

  4. #44
    The Time-Loop Continues ZC Developer
    Gleeok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,827
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    12,978
    Level
    33
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    28.3%
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimentio View Post
    Ah. I vote on making it as close to ZScript as possible, without it's limitations.
    Probably the best possible answer. I will do that.


    Sure. Right now I've got the parser and compiler working and can create and call scripts. The first test scripts should be forthcoming this week.

    I'm going to experiment with the compiler options to see if I can get rid of handles or not. The docs are not clear on this. ("handles" are the Class@ c; @c = @something; Foo(@c); stuff)
    [EDIT] This unfortunately produces weird compiler errors. "Normal" scripts and all engine declared things will not force scripts to use them, however if you write classes and want to communicate custom classes with each other then in those cases you will have to use them as parameters. It's likely most normal scripts won't ever need them... I think...

    There's no ZC bindings for the time being until everything is tested fully, but I can put in a math library for collisions and vector math stuff. It is important to implement these c++ side to get all the performance benefits of c++ compiled code and have scripts use that directly with no intermediate layer. What I'm going for is at least a 20x performance increase over ZScript for common tasks. We'll see what happens.
    Last edited by Gleeok; 01-25-2017 at 09:04 AM.
    This post contains the official Gleeok seal of approval. Look for these and other posts in an area near you.

  5. #45
    Username Kaiser SUCCESSOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Winning.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,436
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    10,582
    Level
    30
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    54.35%
    Quote Originally Posted by Gleeok View Post
    Probably the best possible answer. I will do that.


    Sure. Right now I've got the parser and compiler working and can create and call scripts. The first test scripts should be forthcoming this week.

    I'm going to experiment with the compiler options to see if I can get rid of handles or not. The docs are not clear on this. ("handles" are the Class@ c; @c = @something; Foo(@c); stuff)
    [EDIT] This unfortunately produces weird compiler errors. "Normal" scripts and all engine declared things will not force scripts to use them, however if you write classes and want to communicate custom classes with each other then in those cases you will have to use them as parameters. It's likely most normal scripts won't ever need them... I think...

    There's no ZC bindings for the time being until everything is tested fully, but I can put in a math library for collisions and vector math stuff. It is important to implement these c++ side to get all the performance benefits of c++ compiled code and have scripts use that directly with no intermediate layer. What I'm going for is at least a 20x performance increase over ZScript for common tasks. We'll see what happens.
    Why would you get rid of handles?

  6. #46
    Here lies mero. Died by his own dumbassitude.
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    929
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    5,527
    Level
    23
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    13.96%
    Gleeok, please tell me you're joking for once. I really want my callback functions this time around.

  7. #47
    The Time-Loop Continues ZC Developer
    Gleeok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,827
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    12,978
    Level
    33
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    28.3%
    Joking you say?! I never joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by SUCCESSOR View Post
    Why would you get rid of handles?
    They're not needed since the compiler should be able to know all the types at compile. I remember years ago (2011?) Andreas said that for AS ver. 3.0 he wanted to revamp the language to allow this. There's a few options for this but it's not complete. There's no real reason other than simplifying the syntax for scripters to be closer to something more familiar like ZScript or CS.
    This post contains the official Gleeok seal of approval. Look for these and other posts in an area near you.

  8. #48
    Here lies mero. Died by his own dumbassitude.
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    929
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    5,527
    Level
    23
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    13.96%
    @Gleeok
    Just cause your compiler know the types, doesn't mean it knows the scope of it's functions and such. We need function callbacks and message handlers for that sole reason. Since you seem to be so set and determine on simplifying the syntax; which is something i have been completely against since the start of this discussion. This is for several reasons. First I hate the simplification of C to ZScript, Second people need to learn to adapt. I'm not even a programmer, I'm a freaking artist and I can learn a programming language easily if I put my mind to it. Anyways will simply move on from this project. And start dedicating my fulltime to other projects. Adios Amigos

  9. #49
    The Time-Loop Continues ZC Developer
    Gleeok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,827
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    12,978
    Level
    33
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    28.3%
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamamo View Post
    @Gleeok
    Just cause your compiler know the types, doesn't mean it knows the scope of it's functions and such. We need function callbacks and message handlers for that sole reason. Since you seem to be so set and determine on simplifying the syntax; which is something i have been completely against since the start of this discussion. This is for several reasons. First I hate the simplification of C to ZScript, Second people need to learn to adapt. I'm not even a programmer, I'm a freaking artist and I can learn a programming language easily if I put my mind to it. Anyways will simply move on from this project. And start dedicating my fulltime to other projects. Adios Amigos
    Not sure I understand what you mean? I'm talking about the angelscrit compiler and the author of the language. I'm not talking about removing any functionality of the language. Anyways, that functionality is not complete so it's kind of moot.

    Callbacks ARE being put in, that's kind of a main point.
    This post contains the official Gleeok seal of approval. Look for these and other posts in an area near you.

  10. #50
    Administrator DarkDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,228
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    vBActivity - Stats
    Points
    11,047
    Level
    31
    vBActivity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    10.69%
    I think it's important to keep in mind a separation between the semantics we want, and the details of the syntax.

    Moving to message handlers is a big change in semantics and it's important that we hash out the details of how we want scripts to interact with the game engine and with each other using this system.

    Syntax is important, especially for easing the transition from other languages to AS, but much less urgent to argue about right now since it is easier to change (by modifying AS, or preprocessing) than core semantics.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Armageddon Games is a game development group founded in 1997. We are extremely passionate about our work and our inspirations are mostly drawn from games of the 8-bit and 16-bit era.
Social