AngelScript: The Revenge

[SUCCESSOR]

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?

[Tamamo]

Gleeok, please tell me you're joking for once. I really want my callback functions this time around.

[Gleeok]

Joking you say?! I never joke.

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.