Werewolves and Wanderer (Beta - Wireframe)

[Collector]

There is also the official documentation. http://sciwiki.sierrahelp.com//index.php?title=Official_SCI_Documentation

[Kawa]

How so?

I assumed wrong.

[MusicallyInspired]

Aw, fuckstacks.

How so? There is little point in targeting SCI1 when we can target SCI1.1 instead.

There is little point in targeting SCI when we can target AGS instead.

[Kawa]

Woo sarcasm!

[MusicallyInspired]

I think Duke4 is rubbing off on me a little too much...

[troflip]

Except there's no template game for SCI1, so the AGS/SCI vs SCI1.1/SCI1 comparison doesn't really apply

[MusicallyInspired]

The fact that there is no template game is precisely why it applies. There was no SCI1.1 template game 3 years ago either.

I know it's unrealistic, just being facetious and pointing out the fallacy in saying there's no point in using something older than what's available.

[lskovlun]

I know it's unrealistic, just being facetious and pointing out the fallacy in saying there's no point in using something older than what's available.

Not just something older, but something which is equivalent in most ways, except for the missing features...?

[MusicallyInspired]

You talking about SCI vs AGS or SCI1 vs SCI1.1? If it's the latter, well,....no cursor resources? lol I know I have no argument worthy of convincing anybody, I just wish is all. Please don't waste your time working on something only I would ever use...maybe.

[JRedant]

I'll just make it easy for everyone:

I'm using this. Cool?

Oki-doke! Now that I'm looking at this version, and the tutorials, I have the exact same feeling that I had when looking at Visual Studio: "Time to get my hands dirty"

One thing I do like is Sierra Script is not all that different than SCI Script.

Let's have a look and see how far I can get in wireframing the Werewolves and Wanderer game using this version.

[troflip]

One thing I do like is Sierra Script is not all that different than SCI Script.

*SCI Studio Script (or just Studio Script).

Yeah, they're pretty similar - SCI Studio Script was invented by Brian based on the limited knowledge of the original syntax at the time.

Sierra Script is a nearly faithful reproduction of the original syntax (how the "linking" is done with other script files is different, and other small things like methods don't need to be declared before their implementation).

The compiler is a lot more strict with Sierra syntax than it is with SCI Studio syntax, since it doesn't need to maintain compatibility with SCI Studio. This is a good thing, since it helps prevent bugs.

[JRedant]

What I seem to notice is comparing SCI Studio Script and Sierra Script is a lot like comparing VB and C#.

If we were a bigger community, I would like to think that we would like to keep and develop both flavors, as it were.

[Kawa]

What I seem to notice is comparing SCI Studio Script and Sierra Script is a lot like comparing VB and C#.

As a C# nut, so very much agreed.

[MusicallyInspired]

I look at Studio Script as an unwieldy yet necessary evil for starting out, but now that we have something more faithful and more authentic, it's a hurdle that we have now passed and no longer need to be limited by. Also, less bugs and chance of errors for the same reason as Troflip said. Having two languages would just be unnecessary complicating things. People skilled in one language would have trouble communicating in another, not to mention people with problems in one language wouldn't have any in the other. There are no advantages to using Studio Script over Sierra Script, other than someone being used to it. But in this case, I think it's best not to be stuck in the past and go with the more accurate and functional method. My two cents.

[JRedant]

I agree with Musically. The differences between Sierra Script and Studio Script aren't huge, but it is worth an effort to learn Sierra Script. It's worth it, in the end.