GScript <-> GScript2

Andares · #1 10-29-2004, 08:38 PM

I think that servers should be able to use both gscript and gscript2 on their server. Alot of the owners aren't going to want to rescript their entire systems, or stay using gscript alone. So why not make them backwards compatible or something?

Kaimetsu · #2 10-29-2004, 09:15 PM

GS2 is backwards-compatible. To my disapproval.

Slash-P2P · #3 10-29-2004, 09:17 PM

If I have to re-learn scripting, I'm gonna quit developing...

zell12 · #4 10-29-2004, 10:38 PM

Re-learn scripting? It is pretty much the same...

Dach · #5 10-29-2004, 10:57 PM

You must have missed the memo. As Kai stated, it's already backwards compatible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

GS2 is backwards-compatible. To my disapproval.

Why is that? Are we losing functionality/efficiency from this? (I'm asking because I seriously don't know)

Slash-P2P · #6 10-30-2004, 03:02 AM

I know its backwards compatible but...I don't want to learn a bunc of new scripting commands to do certain things only GS2 allows.

Lance · #7 10-30-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

I know its backwards compatible but...I don't want to learn a bunc of new scripting commands to do certain things only GS2 allows.

You do not wish to learn? How sad.

Slash-P2P · #8 10-30-2004, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

You do not wish to learn? How sad.

I don't wish to have to learn a whole script language over again

Maybe if I heard more about GScript2 I would be more interested in it...

Kaimetsu · #9 10-30-2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dach

Why is that?

Because nobody should be mixing GS1 with GS2. I would prefer to see a system where the language used is specified in some kind of directive at the top (like '//#GS1' or so).

Loriel · #10 10-30-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

If I have to re-learn scripting, I'm gonna quit developing...

Good bye.
Old gscript is deprecated, playerworlds will not want to hire people who can only develop in an outdated language.

Admins · #11 10-30-2004, 12:11 PM

It's backwards compatible, you can mix old and new scripting language, you can do stuff like
player.chat = "hello " @ #a;
As long as your server wants to support Graal v2, you will need to keep the client-side scripts in old scripting though. The only thing that is not compatible with old scripting engine right now is the use of things like "this.x" which is a simple variable in old engine, while it is redirecting to the x position of the current object/npc in the new engine, will need to check what i can do about that.

LogicBot · #12 10-30-2004, 05:13 PM

I heard that GScript2 is supposed to be easier.

And quitting just because you don't want to learn the new scripts is just arogance.

Slash-P2P · #13 10-30-2004, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loriel

Good bye.
Old gscript is deprecated, playerworlds will not want to hire people who can only develop in an outdated language.

I'm not looking to work on someones server. I own my own server.

falco10291029 · #14 10-30-2004, 06:47 PM

I'll probably learn some of it at least, but i'm not going to take the time to get as good at it as i am with good ol gscript1

Loriel · #15 10-30-2004, 07:29 PM

Which will be incredibly inferior to those that take full advantage of the great and dynamic strengths of object oriented NPCs!

Slash-P2P · #16 10-30-2004, 07:54 PM

I admit I'll try to learn GS2 but I don't know exactly what could make GS2 so much greater than GS1. I've barely heard anything about GS2 or seen any code examples.

falco10291029 · #17 10-30-2004, 09:08 PM

same here

Kaimetsu · #18 10-30-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

I admit I'll try to learn GS2 but I don't know exactly what could make GS2 so much greater than GS1

Have you ever programmed in such languages as C?

Slash-P2P · #19 10-30-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Have you ever programmed in such languages as C?

No. I've used a little bit of Visual Basic but thats it.

falco10291029 · #20 10-31-2004, 12:59 AM

I know a little bit of basic, and i know the basic format of C, but that's it

Kaimetsu · #21 10-31-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

No

Then I cannot blame you for being unable to see the possibilities. But do not assume that they don't exist.

Slash-P2P · #22 10-31-2004, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Then I cannot blame you for being unable to see the possibilities. But do not assume that they don't exist.

I said I don't know what can make it so much better. I'm not doubting these ways exist.

Dach · #23 11-05-2004, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Because nobody should be mixing GS1 with GS2. I would prefer to see a system where the language used is specified in some kind of directive at the top (like '//#GS1' or so).

Oh, I see what you're getting at now. That'll definitely become something of a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

As long as your server wants to support Graal v2, you will need to keep the client-side scripts in old scripting though.

Are you saying client-side won't support GS2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

I admit I'll try to learn GS2 but I don't know exactly what could make GS2 so much greater than GS1. I've barely heard anything about GS2 or seen any code examples.

From what I've seen you shouldn't have much trouble moving from GS1 to GS2.

Kaimetsu · #24 11-05-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dach

Are you saying client-side won't support GS2?

v3.1 and upwards will support GS2, but not v2. I'm assuming Stefan will allow use of the earlier versions for a while after the new generation is released.

Slash-P2P · #25 11-07-2004, 10:48 AM

Does anyone have any real code examples or GS2?
All I've seen is something like:
player.chat="hello" or something

Admins · #26 11-07-2004, 03:25 PM

NPC Code:



function compileScript() {

  script = "";

  script.add("function onCreated() {");



  for (con: this.containers)

    addControlCreationScript(script.link(),con,0);



  script.add("}");

  script.savelines("weapon.txt",0);



  ScriptEditor.openScriptWindow(script);

}

Here an example of writing into a file (savelines), the new for-each operator, calling functions with parameters (addControlCreationScript), and calling public functions of other scripts/objects (ScriptEditor.openScriptWindow).
You can do similar things with addstring script,... instead of script.add, passing parameters by setting this. variables, and doing callnpc, but with the new script it's more simple (e.g. the functions of other objects can return values).

xAndrewx · #27 11-07-2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

NPC Code:



function compileScript() {

  script = "";

  script.add("function onCreated() {");



  for (con: this.containers)

    addControlCreationScript(script.link(),con,0);



  script.add("}");

  script.savelines("weapon.txt",0);



  ScriptEditor.openScriptWindow(script);

}

Here an example of writing into a file (savelines), the new for-each operator, calling functions with parameters (addControlCreationScript), and calling public functions of other scripts/objects (ScriptEditor.openScriptWindow).
You can do similar things with addstring script,... instead of script.add, passing parameters by setting this. variables, and doing callnpc, but with the new script it's more simple (e.g. the functions of other objects can return values).

Holy, thats new graal script? :O

Slash-P2P · #28 11-07-2004, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

NPC Code:



the most confusing thing i've ever seen

Here an example of writing into a file (savelines), the new for-each operator, calling functions with parameters (addControlCreationScript), and calling public functions of other scripts/objects (ScriptEditor.openScriptWindow).
You can do similar things with addstring script,... instead of script.add, passing parameters by setting this. variables, and doing callnpc, but with the new script it's more simple (e.g. the functions of other objects can return values).

That's supposed to be simple?

falco10291029 · #29 11-08-2004, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlashP2P

That's supposed to be simple?

I agree with slash wholeheartedly, that looks very advanced, or maybe you didn't explain it correctly, either way, it won't be easy to change over to Gscript2 :-/

Dach · #30 11-08-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falco10291029

I agree with slash wholeheartedly, that looks very advanced, or maybe you didn't explain it correctly, either way, it won't be easy to change over to Gscript2 :-/

That would be an example of are more complex operation.

It really wasn't that hard to follow anyway, granted you have some programming knowledge.

He created a weapon file, put "function OnCreated() {" in there, used that cool for-each thing to most likely put some code in there, then added a "}", then saved the file and called the script editor to open the window.
and I just made a crappy run-on sentence of me babbling

falco10291029 · #31 11-08-2004, 11:44 PM

I got mos tof it, like the fact that it was creating something, it's just complex and a little hard to follow, and seems like it will be ahrder than gscript 1

Ajira · #32 11-09-2004, 12:08 AM

I, personally, cannot wait.

Admins · #33 11-09-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falco10291029

I got mos tof it, like the fact that it was creating something, it's just complex and a little hard to follow, and seems like it will be ahrder than gscript 1

No it's simplier, try the same with the old engine ...
e.g. imagine this:

setstring clientr.hp,#v(strtofloat(#s(clientr.hp)) + 1);

in new script is

clientr.hp++;

falco10291029 · #34 11-09-2004, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

No it's simplier, try the same with the old engine ...
e.g. imagine this:

setstring clientr.hp,#v(strtofloat(#s(clientr.hp)) + 1);

in new script is

clientr.hp++;

*tears of joy* Wow, editing strings with ++? It's so beautiful. But on a more serious note, i obviously meant the script you showed, not all of it since I can't possibly know what all the commands/ transformations will be like.

LogicBot · #35 11-09-2004, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

That's supposed to be simple?

Looks simple. Current gScript looks more complicated to me.

Slash-P2P · #36 11-09-2004, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicBot

Looks simple. Current gScript looks more complicated to me.

Some parts look complicated (such as Stefan's example), and some parts look easy such as changing a string with ++

Kaimetsu · #37 11-09-2004, 08:12 PM

Dudes, that wasn't a string.

protagonist · #38 11-09-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Dudes, that wasn't a string.

It was a spicey meatball! How could you all have been so mistaken!?

Admins · #39 11-09-2004, 10:18 PM

In new scripting engine all variables are variant and are handled depending on the operation, so if you do + then it is automatically converting string to float. When changing "clientr.hp" it is also automatically sending it to the client (transferred as flag/string like before).

A simplier example:

NPC Code:



  for (pl: allplayers) {

    if (!(pl.x in |577,1008| && pl.y in |-200,320|)) {

      pl.x = 768 + random(-5,5);

      pl.y = 44 + random(-5,5);

      pl.sendrpgmessage("Sorry you cannot walk out of this yet.");

    }

  }

This is for warping people back to the town (on graal3d) if they go out of the town. As you can see it is using the new for-each command, and you don't need to use the with-command so often anymore, since you can call functions of the object easier.

Ajira · #40 11-09-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

This is for warping people back to the town (on graal3d) if they go out of the town. As you can see it is using the new for-each command, and you don't need to use the with-command so often anymore, since you can call functions of the object easier.

I love it.