[ddhoward]

Originally Posted by Bubka3 -snip-

Note that BAILOPAN has stated that the old ways will still continue to work.

I will agree with you on one thing; before I joined this forum, I knew literally nothing about scripting/programming. It was this website, and a year of maintaining/updating Friendly Mode, that helped me to breeze through my "Programming Fundamentals" class with the highest score, and is responsible for getting me back into school. It was Sourcepawn's simplicity that enabled all this.

However, these changes seem like a natural progression of this project. :\

[Bubka3]

Right, but it's called transitional presumably because sooner or later it would go. I doubt the devs will want to continue support something so old 5, 10, 15 major releases down the line.

Then there's that.

Originally Posted by BAILOPAN I don't think we could get away with breaking old scripts. What we can do though is build really awesome new tools, and only allow transitioned code in the new tools. I don't know if we'll get there, but if we do - we'll be shipping two compilers and two VMs in SourceMod.

So while it might not break your old scripts, if you need a new feature because of a game update, your hand is basically being forced.

[asherkin]

Originally Posted by Bubka3 On the other hand, that (what I underlined) and the fact that I started with SourcePawn would probably explain why I am having a real hard time getting into newer modern languages, especially when they are object-based.

It does, and it's one of the problems we're trying to solve.

I find it quite hard to understand the number of people arguing against 3 tiny syntactic changes that will make code safer, easier for people to transition (both from and to) other languages, provide the footing for language features that there has been huge demand to add for years, and don't increase the complexity of learning SourcePawn at all (seriously, we're talking about moving some words around, removing an extraneous character, and renaming some types to use more common names rather than crazypants ones like cell - which most people don't even know about and just call int).

Learning the language will be easier, not harder.

[KissLick]

Will you prefere some programming/ident style ? Cause till now there is a lot of different ident styles and it's sometimes hard to read/edit foreign code... I think it would be nice to say, that we prefere one ident style and use it (not require it).

[asherkin]

Originally Posted by KissLick Will you prefere some programming/ident style ? Cause till now there is a lot of different ident styles and it's sometimes hard to read/edit foreign code... I think it would be nice to say, that we prefere one ident style and use it (not require it).

Probably not, consistency is more important for readability than any specific style.

[BAILOPAN]

People get emotionally attached to things they like and are familiar with - I understand that, and I think it's great that people like SourcePawn enough to be concerned about its direction. I started using Pawn when it was called Small back in 2001 - I've literally been using it for 13 years. I now consider it in many ways my baby. (Or, at this point, awkward teenager. Possibly with rabies.) The other facet of course - is having to learn new things is difficult and there's some activation energy there.

Pawn first appeared (as SmallC) in 1984. It has not changed much since then. There are very few people willing to even look at its implementation, much less work on it. The language itself has severe safety problems that hinder both SourceMod and new programmers, and these problems don't give Pawn any benefits. Users who discover other languages (such as C++, or C#, or Java), find Pawn very archaic to work in. It's difficult to write correct Pawn code even for seasoned developers.

As engineers we have to look for ways to improve. That's what makes us engineers. Do we want to be beavers building the same dam over and over, or do we want to figure out how to make SourceMod the best it can be?

With over a decade of experience looking at the problems in this space - and 6+ years of industry experience in programming language design and implementation - I'm pretty confident both that SourcePawn can be improved and this will be a marked improvement. It might be a big step, but it's a step that will make SourcePawn legitimately more enjoyable.

[BAILOPAN]

Originally Posted by KissLick Will you prefere some programming/ident style ? Cause till now there is a lot of different ident styles and it's sometimes hard to read/edit foreign code... I think it would be nice to say, that we prefere one ident style and use it (not require it).

I'm a big fan of finding ways to encourage a uniform style. For new AM projects I've been leaning toward Google's: http://google-styleguide.googlecode....k/cppguide.xml (with some slight adjustments for SM ecosphere). If I ever write a lint tool for SourcePawn, it will output something close to that.

Anyway, this isn't the topic for that - I'll just say it doesn't matter (people get used to whatever they're given), and matters a lot (some styles *are* better than others and that's evident in code quality and prevalence in higher-tier tech).

[MomemtumMori]

Will there be some form of inheritance and polymorphism at some point?

[RedSword]

Originally Posted by asherkin ... I find it quite hard to understand the number of people arguing against 3 tiny syntactic changes that will make code safer, easier for people to transition (both from and to) other languages, provide the footing for language features that there has been huge demand to add for years, and don't increase the complexity of learning SourcePawn at all (seriously, we're talking about moving some words around, removing an extraneous character, and renaming some types to use more common names rather than crazypants ones like cell - which most people don't even know about and just call int). Learning the language will be easier, not harder.

Easier for people that know how to program; not the others. Learning to program is time consuming when you begin. The object is an important part of it (if you touch to object programming, you usually touch to inheritance and then overriden methods, constructor/destructor, ...).

This aside, I'm really happy to see Sourcepawn evolve. I was afraid after seeing both Knight fall and SM/SP 2.0 being strongly delayed (to not say canceled), that SM/SP would stop there.

Red

[Drixevel]

Least this gives everyone who started with Pawn a head start into modern languages. (if they haven't already)