Author Topic: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax  (Read 3040 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cloudee1

Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« on: February 25, 2016, 12:27:40 PM »
I know the push right now is for Sierra syntax over Studio syntax, but I am not really sure why...

Anyone care to weigh off on their opinions?


Halloween Competition Brass Lantern Prop Competition Groundhog Day Competition

Offline Kawa

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2016, 01:08:31 PM »
I like Sierra syntax, to be honest.

Offline MusicallyInspired

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2016, 02:47:47 PM »
Might be a little easier. At least on the eyes? It's certainly more authentic.
Brass Lantern Prop Competition

Offline Collector

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2016, 02:50:48 PM »
I have not tried anything in the Sierra, but what I have seen of it, the Sierra seems more intuitive and makes more logical sense. A lot of that impression comes from 'Wikifying' all of the official Sierra docs.
KQII Remake Pic

Offline troflip

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2016, 03:44:14 PM »
It's a little more logically consistent than Brian's syntax. Moreover, it's what Sierra used (or very close to it - just the way "uses" are done is different, really).

Ways Sierra syntax is better:
- There's no need to use "send" for variables holding object references and no "send" for using object references directly. That whole thing was weird, I don't know why Brian made it that way
- The and and or operators work like all the rest of the operators (prefix notation)
- Support for continue statements and multilevel break and continue.
- cond statement to simplify nested if-then-else constructs.
- Many prefix operators can take more than 2 arguments (e.g. (+ 5 8 10 44))


To be honest, both syntaxes are fairly strange compared to most languages today. So if you're going to use a weird programming language like this, may as well use the one that's historically accurate. :P

If I find some time, I may take the SCI0 tutorials and make a "Sierra syntax" version of them. Right now it feels like Sierra syntax is most natural for SCI1.1 and Brian's Studio syntax for SCI0, since that's what the tuts use.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 08:57:46 PM by troflip »
Check out my website: http://icefallgames.com
Groundhog Day Competition

Offline OmerMor

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2016, 04:00:56 PM »
One more reason:
because we now have Sierra's infrastructure source including the system scripts, and it would be great for the community to use them directly or indirectly.
In the future we might stumble upon authentic game scripts as well (here's for hoping).

Offline gumby

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2016, 08:17:41 PM »
This raises a really good point, the tutorials should be consistent - or two different sets of tutorials are needed.  Could be a big turn-off for those trying to make a game with the tools here.
In the Great Underground Empire (Zork port in development)
Winter Break 2012 Rope Prop Competition

Offline Collector

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2016, 10:00:50 PM »
Maybe we could have a community effort to update the tutorials. If Sierra is to be the default for SCI1.1 and Studio for SCI0, anyone that starts with SCI0 and then takes on SCI1.1 will have a steeper learning curve in that they will also need to learn the new syntax. As Gumby notes, it would be a deterrent to new users. We should make everything uniformly Sierra.
KQII Remake Pic

Offline Kawa

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2016, 04:20:52 AM »
I could use something to do and I'm looking at Cloud's "Your First Game" tutorial right now. Just give me the sign.

Edit: "Handling the Player's 'Said' Input" "Your First Game" is sitting ready for submission. There are two parts that would be perfect for conversion to cond in there, especially the first one, the one about the No Claim operator.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 05:35:06 AM by Kawa »

Offline MusicallyInspired

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2016, 09:10:37 AM »
Just make sure the original Studio Syntax still exists as well, either for an alternative or simply posterity.
Brass Lantern Prop Competition

Offline Kawa

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2016, 09:14:00 AM »
Too late now on my end, but Cloudee1 made backups before giving me the all-clear so...

Offline Collector

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2016, 12:21:23 PM »
Perhaps you would like to take on the Wiki, too.
KQII Remake Pic

Offline claudehuggins

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2016, 08:14:35 PM »
From the perspective of a new, inexperienced user, Sierra syntax makes a lot more sense. It's easier to read for me. It also looks a lot nicer, cleaner, both of which merit points for something you're going to be staring at for hours on end. (Of course, this last point is purely subjective.)

I have nothing to add on the technical aspects, as I am too new to the language to understand more complicated points, but I thought perhaps the input of a "new user" would count for something, as keeping things simple for new users seemed to be a hot topic.
A while ago, at a block party I found myself socially trapped at, I thought to myself: I need a t-shirt that says, "I'd rather be programming".

Offline Collector

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2016, 11:41:44 PM »
Perhaps you would like to take on the Wiki, too.

Crickets?
KQII Remake Pic

Offline Kawa

Re: Sierra Syntax vs. Studio Syntax
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2016, 06:42:50 AM »
I don't seem to have a wiki account.


SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 25 queries.