WiiLi.org

[SwedishFrog]

We'd like OpenPIE's scripting language to be easy to adopt for GlovePIE users as well as other languages. We should decide how to accomplish this.

I can think of three approaches right now

1. Mimic GlovePIE's syntax exactly.
Pro: The basic syntax is already laid out.
Con: We are restricted to use that syntax.

2. Design our own syntax, and include a translation utility to convert GlovePIE scripts to OpenPIE scripts.
Pro: Our new syntax can be as slick as we want because we're not bound to any existing structure.
Con: It might be hard to explain this concept to your average clueless noob. We'd have to be very careful about the design of the GUI for importing scripts.

3. Design our own syntax, but also try to accept GlovePIE syntax with the same parser.
Pro: Easy to use
Con: We would have to be extra careful in designing the new syntax, because it must not conflict with the GlovePIE syntax.


Thoughts? Other ideas?

[luis_villase]

Well, we talked about this before (I can't really remember if it was via email or forum thread). Anyhow, just to make it official, my vote goes to GlovePIE syntax. My choice is based on the primary pro: it's already there. But there's also another powerful reason: GlovePIE syntax is kind of a hybrid between Java and Visual Basic, for it accepts a great deal of definitions for a single expression. This may be a drawback, but I think of it as an advantage.
Not only you don't really need to know a programming language to use it, but also if you now (almost) anything, it will help. This gives the project a high level of maneuverability and flexibility.

About options 2 and 3, well... they're good options, but will result in almost double work. Designing the syntax can be simple enough (simple, not easy). But you will need to build a translator from GlovePIE anyway, so why bother?
_________________
Not all mexicans enjoy tamales and piñatas, and tacos aren't really made that way!
Luis V.

[bellwethr]

I'd opt for as much flexibility as possible in your language. By requiring adherence to an older, pre-existing standard, you lock yourself into the feature set that that language uses.


#3 seems like your best bet.

Better, since you can start with just accepting GlovePIE scripts and add new language features later as desired.

[Cha0s]

I'd say 3b. Basically, take GlovePIE's syntax at the beginning and then add stuff in when new features come up. I wouldn't "design" a syntax, but I would allow for the possibility of additions. The reasons are those stated by luis. While I personally would like a more uniform syntax (all if-statements have to be formulated the same way, for example), I understand the reason for the flexible syntax GlovePIE employs and think it is worth preserving and using in our own library. Just my 2¢.
_________________
Cha0s

[kiddo7]

I am very reluctant to post in this thread since have never written Java code and I still (regretfully) do not have a wiimote. I feel like I am overstepping my boundaries and butting my nose into "serious business"
If, however, you will overlook my forward behavior and hear me out, ignoring my n00b status, I would be honored to deliver what I have to say.

I too agree with Cha0s and bellwethr, that the third option would most likely be most practical if your approach was to start with the preexisting PIE language and expand it as the need and opportunity arises. Seeing as how i have been this shameless forgive me one more time and let me reiterate once again what i have been hoping to very subtly coax/encourage/pressure/manipulate (take your pick) you people into doing by mentioning it here and there; If you could expand the glovePIE script with custom/user-definable functions that can be called from the code. I believe you will have built a powerful and useful software.

Thank you for your patience with me. I shall now return to the shadows from whence I came...

[SwedishFrog]

Hey guys. I've been thinking about this grammar business and I thought of something we should discuss.

It's about the way Glovepie handles If statements. GlovePIE's if statements are also loops. When the If statement is executed, It checks the condition, and if it's true, it runs the code block. After the block finishes, it starts over and checks the condition and decides whether to run the code block a second time. It continues to loop like this until the condition becomes false.

I can understand why this is useful behavior for an input emulator -- It makes it easy for you to check a button state and run code to handle that button state continuously until it's no longer pressed. It's a good feature and we should support it

However I think there are lots of times where you would not want an if block to automatically loop over itself. I feel like we should support both normal If's and Looping If's.

Because i'm inclined to make this language consistent with 99% of the other languages in this world, I would want If's that don't loop unless you request it. Sadly this conflicts with GlovePIE's design

Let's say that non-looping If's would use the syntax:

[bellwethr]

Just for the sake of clarity, can we refer to your looping "If" as a while loop?