097 Coregina Roadmap

[MuadDib]

This post hopefully won't be updated to badly, but, this is the current roadmap we have set up (subject to change without notice).

[Tomi]

Many nice feature updates there but...

what about speedhack prevention ?
what about support for osi encrypted clients ?
what about Movemode A (air) for npc ?

[Guest]

[Marilla]

I, again, agree with Xandros. I like the looks of everything there, but I would definitely vote for making the 'only-see-items-when-in-the-house' thing optional. Of course, it seems a normal thing that you guys do often make such things configurable, which is great, but just to make sure!

[melanius]

Since 095 deprecated the equal sign for equality and switched to == for it, maybe we should consider using = to deprecate := for assignment.

[MuadDib]

I thought about it, but atm unsure. This goes for the multi change (on/off), and the = assignment.

Firstly, we wish to get 097 done as fast as possible, without sacrificing quality in the release. Second, we want to try to concentrate on fixes and optimization really. I know a lot of the roadmap does not seem to fit those 2 categories, but that is the "published" roadmap. When I say "clean out some unused code", that means a ton of crap needs to go, hehe.

The change with targeting, should help clarify some things with the reason. Also, the target cancel change should fix script issues it can cause.

On the multi change, for items being sent... Besides bandwidth aide, and blackhole fixes, it also helps cuz the same system is to be used with multi walk-on scripts. But as far as make it configurable, I am unsure. Cuz that means having two entirely different systems just for sending items in range. Unsure how that will affect core performance yet. And, that may end up being something left for 098 (the item sent part).

Far as the stuff we are NOT doing in the 097 roadmap....... that doesn't mean we don't plan on ever adding them. Let's face it, 096 ended up being dragged out WAY WAY WAY too long, just to keep adding stuff. Give us time, it can be done, but at the best pace we can give ourselves.

Hope this info helps. If not, just flame away all-the-while 097 gets done faster than expected

[Xandros]

[tekproxy]

First, I should get an award, because I didn't create a "When is 097 going to be out?" thread, and secondly, good job guys! 096 is finally out woo hoo! 097 roadmap looks very nice.

[Yukiko]

Please!!!
Let's not go to '=' for assignment. That will cause confusion I think. Besides if you do that it will add to the length of upgrading that will be required from scripts that are based on earlier POL versions.

I am perfectly happy with the operators as they are right now.

[MuadDib]

While I like the idea of = personally.... it's just that, personally. Let's face it, escript is about "ease of use". And yes Yu, in my opinion, it might add to confusion. Who knows. But just one person's opinion.

[melanius]

I understand you worrying Yukiko, but moving := to = will make it easier for newcomers and I didn't say change it now, rather have a version to deprecate it and change it in 098, not a minor version such as 096.4 or 097.2.

I read your reply on http://forums.polserver.com/viewtopic.php?t=491 and I don't think its a matter of fixing, rather a matter of making it consistent with the rest of the programming world.

I agree that eScript should not be afraid to break consistency when it will make it easier for the end user and preferably more verbose/cleaner, but I don't see the point of := over =.

Edit:
Although this may sound corny POL is actually still in beta thus the lack of 1 release (although its more than stable), so API changes/breaking should be tolerated by end users as all the devs do is strive for the better end result (always hearing what the users have to say along the way )

[Yukiko]

Melanius it isn't just the ':=' issue as I stated. If it was just one change that wouldn't be a problem. But you read my post about that so I'll forgo any redundant posting here.

Let's face it. Programming/scripting will always require some learning curve. I'll be the first to admit that eScripts for loop is more cryptic than I like but I certainly don't want to see us go to the BASIC for syntax which is something like this:

[melanius]

Yukiko, I think you missed my point entirely here.

I understand your concern but I tried to explain you the reasons to think out of the POL box.

If the main issue is moving a scriptbase from := to = I can assure you it can be done with a simple regex python/perl script way too easy, there's nothing to think on that matter.

Anyway, its too early to be worried on this. Lets enjoy 096 release

Muad, sorry for hijacking the topic!

[Aeros]

Or even UltraEdit's "replace in files" function

[MuadDib]

Let's remember, the roadmap is only a guide for us developers. Already there has been things not on it, go in. And things on it, might be held off. Who knows.