do you think scripting should be easyer

> I've never done any scripting outside of SL.

It's a very cool achievement to be able to come in from nothing and pick up LSL.

You say you've never tried any scripting outside of LSL. You dont know what youre missing

Azelda

The only programming experience I have had was commodore 64 and that was a LOOOOONG time ago. that being said.....I havent had any other programming experience at all up to present time and it would be nice if scripting could be made so that everyone could use it not just computer gurus and the like. A bunch of people have NO computer experience and couldnt figure out scripting at all even with the classes so make it easier and save people the headache.

just a newbie opinion here but i think scripting is plenty easy for what you can do with it. i'm an artist, not a computer guru, not a geek, i hate math and it hates me. but i've picked up alot just poking around, looking at scripts, reading the wiki and most of all experimenting. when i think of something i want i find out if it's possible and then i make it happen. usually with alot of whining for help in this forum hehe but still. so far that's worked great. i do all my own scripting now.

Why does it have to be a "language" at all? I've seen some fairly powerful *graphical* programming systems. MATLAB stateflow for instance comes to mind.

The need for scripting to be limited for stability, and simple to use for wide use (this is a game after all), is exactly the environment for which graphical programming languages were developed.

It could be done similar to the building minigame, by "rez"ing structures and commands, and attaching them to achieve the desired results. I think there'd be a lot of new scripters if that were the case: the flow chart IS the program.

I hate loosely typed languages. I'd rather have the bugs found during compile time than in (numerous!) test runs.

Also, LSL should warn you went you declare a local variable in a function with the same name as a global one. I spent one hour the other day tracking a bug because of that.

Make LSL more strict, it'll be easier to do stuff in it.

Oh goddess yes! ECMAScript (Javascript) would be a good choice. It's not strongly typed but it has qualities that would allow for more power:
- object oriented (with prototypes and stuff)
- lambda calculus ! (first class functions)
- regulat expressions

Plus, javascript is well known.

To me LSL feel like the results of a computing class assignment to write a compiler. It mostly works, is a bit shoddy, and has massive room for improvement.

I don't think it needs to be "easier" though.

lsl does not need to be easier exactly. It does need to be more functional because currently a lot of applications require solutions best described as "hacks". If fixing that is what you mean by easier then ignore this.

However I think most people mean easy as in a more forgiving syntax, an easier learning curve, etc. This should not necessarily be the case. Programming languages in my experience are generally more functional the stricter they are. It allows for fewer ambiguities about how your code is supposed to act, a more direct corrilation between execution complexity and code complexity, and easier debugging. I realize there are people who have a different opinion. In theory this problem will eventually be addressed with the advent of mono. At first mono will mean compiling the current lsl language to bytecode so it runs faster, but eventually it could mean that you get to choose a language to write your code in.

Simple answer, lsl needs more and more consistant functionality, and if that means the learning curve gets a little steeper (definitely not easier) I'm still all for it.

when i first started secondlife i expected the scripting system to be like leggo blocks, grab a red function from your box, stick it in a flow chart, set some optoins and send it to the prim.

Theres many progams that do this, one in pertuculer makes windows exe files, really adds convenience @ the office when i have to send out a batch file to clean up machines heh.
(instead of telling the other ppl c:\docu\ect\lair_of_death\hoffa_waz_here\happy.bat, it gives nice little billboards and next buttons)


As a language its easy enugh

As far as it fitting in with the whole SL point and click interface its got along way to go

Crap.. I'd be happy if the editor had a search function... Or how about an array? As far as form, this is the easiest language I've ever seen. Like has been said a couple times by previous posts... it's lack of powerfull functions that gets you.. OMG and what's with the 16KB mem limit per script? And I can't even output a string to a notecard...

I know it's not a development platform... but I get the feeling they limit the language to save processor cycles on the sim servers.. when really they just make us jump through more hoops to keep the users happy.

and GOD PLEASE give me some kind of a garbage collection so I can free memory every once in a while w/o resetting my script's variable? oh please please please...




...yes, I know it's a lame post and repetetive...

I used to program in Applesoft BASIC. Then I dabbled in machine language, which had to be done without an assembler since the existing assembler for Apple II required 64k and I had a 48k machine.
In high school, I learned how to program PASCAL for older PCs, but it seemed so pointless as it didn't do anything I couldn't have done with Applesoft.
When I got my IBM 486, QBASIC was the new standard (replacing the older IBM BASICA), and it was pure heaven and a joy in which to program, even with the ceiling of about 140KB space and the limitations of VGA.
Then I finally broke down one day and got Visual BASIC .NET and was horribly confused. I might have succeeded if I had jumped on at Visual BASIC 6, but the new version ruined everything.
Even today I have to drag out QBASIC if I want to do some non-SL programming. This also causes problems as I can't use it to make a graphic I can screenshot or save to disk.

So yes, I think LSL scripting ought to be easier. But, I seem to have little to no problem with LSL. I just can't remember the syntax about anything until I've screwed up twice.

Do you?
http://secondlife.com/developers/
"Second Life is a 3D platform for developers who want to present, promote, and sell their content and applications to a broad online audience within an immersive, shared space."

So I understand the concern here...but the problem with making it "easier" is the loss of functionality.

You take for example JavaScript (just an example) and lets pretend for a moment it is the "easier method" and then try doing things like vehicle code in that...sure, a simple vehicle, possibly...but some of the stuff I have seen in SL? no way...just to cumbersome.

the more simple the scripting gets, the more people will have to hack around the limitations, and that gets cumbersome and ugly fast.

I came to SL as someone who programs outside too...but I had NEVER played with animation, texturing, etc before...it is a STEEP learning curve for me too, but the thing is, if you are in SL building, and do not want to learn...doesn't really make sense.

In order to animate, I had to get poser, and learn it...so in order to code, it does not seem unreasonable to go buy a book on C and learn the basics of programming.

All that said, I would mostly like to see a regex engine, and some decent regex tools.

I see what you are trying to say Mike, but there really is no easy solution that will allow us to maintain the complexity we need. No matter what language you try to use as a base, the problem is still that people will have to understand programming basics (functions, variables, etc) for any language...and the syntax is not where most get hung up...most get hung up on solving the problem and trying to grok programming basics.

I do think that easing some of the inconsistancies would help, and personally, a flag I can set so that I can use degrees instead of radiens in my script and the script will then just translate the degrees to radiens for me. this would allow those who like radiens and are comfortable with them to continue, and me to use degrees easily. Doing simple things like that I think would go a LONG way to making scripting more friendly to dabblers.

I think LSL is excellent, and makes SL what it is...

It's just close enough to C to be no problem at all.

It's just quirky enough to be fun on my nonwork hours.

Of course, I wouldn't mind:

Object foo = llDetectedObject(0);
foo.llGetMass(), foo.llSetTexture(), foo.llLinkMessageTo(), &c &c...

But hey! For cute little 16k chunks of puzzlecode, I dig it. I have no complaints.

(signed) an Old Apple ][ Video Game Programmer of No Note.

I know it is a little ways off but I thought I saw somewhere a official post from a linden that they had a test Sim up running mono. I am not shure how easy it will be to develop for SL and what kind of functions will be removed from the base set. But it is something that has goten me brushing up on VB skills (I took a class once in VB6) and posibly looking at C#, C++.net. I think there is a mono compiler for Perl, Java and a few others. Just something to think about. Mabey someday Lindenlabs will give us an idea of what we can do with mono and how it is going to work.

I think one key aspect is people may be thinking about whether LSL should be easier in two ways:

1. Easier to learn
   
2. Easier to use

These two things are very different. As far as easier to learn, no, I don't think it should be. The more "simple" you make the language to learn, the less power you get from it. QBasic is easier to learn than C, however C is most definately significantly more powerful. If you simplified LSL to make the entry smoother, you would only cripple the usefulness of the language. There are some things that could be simplified (we don't need all these silly datatypes - a vector should just be a three float list, a rotation a four float list, or even better, a four float single dim array). Now an option could be to make LSL-Lite or something that would have easier syntax. Or perhaps as some mentioned, a graphical "drag-and-drop" language similar to the whole lego programming bit or Amigavision (if anyone ever used that even). I actually would be very interested in hearing from people with the desire to program however are having difficulty in learning LSL. One of my little side hobbies in SL is creating programming languages and I have been playing with the thought of a prim-based "Build a program" type concept. Please, if anyone has had difficulty learning LSL but wants to program, IM me in world. I would love to hear what would make programming easier.

The second point about is easier to use. This step is once someone is relatively proficient at the language and utilizing it to their end cause. LSL has some pretty severe blocks in this regard, and much could be made "easier" to use. For starters, the function names should be rethought out and renamed so they are logical and consistent. This could be done relatively easy - keep the old screwed up names but add new tokens (or basically alias the old ones in the compiler) that are logical. I end up having 95% of my errors due to the simple fact there is not logic in the naming of the functions. Another of my major "disturbances" of LSL is indirectly how link messages work (or more dirrectly, the lack of memory in a single script). Some things I create are relatively complex and can spill over to many many seperate scripts. While we can control which prims receieve a message, at times it is necessary to that there will be a large quantity in a single prim and I kind of shutter to thing at the effect of 10 scripts recieving 20 linked messages a second. I love Xylor's concept of the syncronous link message calls, but I'd even be happy if we could specify the script that recieves the message, something like llMessageScript(integer prim_number, string script_name, integer int_data, string string_data, key key_data). This would also prevent acidently "leaks" in linked message data - I occationally (more so in the past) had data sent that ended up activating the improper script. As I mentioned earlier, although it is probably too late at this point, we don't need all these datatypes. A vector and a rotation could just be a list. Make the the <> tokens equate to [] and that would keep compatibility. Add the ability to directly modify a list by foo.1 = 121, foo.2 = 323, and equate x to 1, y to 2, etc to keep the vector and rot element references. Of course I would love to have arrays or even better, mapped arrays that could be indexed by either numbers or letters.

That is probably a long enough rant for the time being (and I need to head off to work).

shared memory! pointers! object orientation! dot notation!

Amen.

I think one key aspect is people may be thinking about whether LSL should be easier in two ways:

1. Easier to learn
   
2. Easier to use

These two things are very different. As far as easier to learn, no, I don't think it should be. The more "simple" you make the language to learn, the less power you get from it. QBasic is easier to learn than C, however C is most definately significantly more powerful. If you simplified LSL to make the entry smoother, you would only cripple the usefulness of the language. There are some things that could be simplified (we don't need all these silly datatypes - a vector should just be a three float list, a rotation a four float list, or even better, a four float single dim array). Now an option could be to make LSL-Lite or something that would have easier syntax. Or perhaps as some mentioned, a graphical "drag-and-drop" language similar to the whole lego programming bit or Amigavision (if anyone ever used that even). I actually would be very interested in hearing from people with the desire to program however are having difficulty in learning LSL. One of my little side hobbies in SL is creating programming languages and I have been playing with the thought of a prim-based "Build a program" type concept. Please, if anyone has had difficulty learning LSL but wants to program, IM me in world. I would love to hear what would make programming easier.

The second point about is easier to use. This step is once someone is relatively proficient at the language and utilizing it to their end cause. LSL has some pretty severe blocks in this regard, and much could be made "easier" to use. For starters, the function names should be rethought out and renamed so they are logical and consistent. This could be done relatively easy - keep the old screwed up names but add new tokens (or basically alias the old ones in the compiler) that are logical. I end up having 95% of my errors due to the simple fact there is not logic in the naming of the functions. Another of my major "disturbances" of LSL is indirectly how link messages work (or more dirrectly, the lack of memory in a single script). Some things I create are relatively complex and can spill over to many many seperate scripts. While we can control which prims receieve a message, at times it is necessary to that there will be a large quantity in a single prim and I kind of shutter to thing at the effect of 10 scripts recieving 20 linked messages a second. I love Xylor's concept of the syncronous link message calls, but I'd even be happy if we could specify the script that recieves the message, something like llMessageScript(integer prim_number, string script_name, integer int_data, string string_data, key key_data). This would also prevent acidently "leaks" in linked message data - I occationally (more so in the past) had data sent that ended up activating the improper script. As I mentioned earlier, although it is probably too late at this point, we don't need all these datatypes. A vector and a rotation could just be a list. Make the the <> tokens equate to [] and that would keep compatibility. Add the ability to directly modify a list by foo.1 = 121, foo.2 = 323, and equate x to 1, y to 2, etc to keep the vector and rot element references. Of course I would love to have arrays or even better, mapped arrays that could be indexed by either numbers or letters.

That is probably a long enough rant for the time being (and I need to head off to work).

If LSL is easy then i must be dumb son. LOL where do i go to find the easy LSL language ?