Hi Ross
I see a lot of merits of JS in Director. You open the door to bringing more
people into Director quickly with a lower learning curve. Those people might
be ActionScript programmers, they might be C++ programmers or Java
programmers.. it doesn't really matter. I have difficulties m
new or a
unique advantage of using JS within Director.
J
On Thursday, Feb 12, 2004, at 10:38 US/Eastern, Mark Jonkman wrote:
Hi Ross
I see a lot of merits of JS in Director. You open the door to bringing
more people into Director quickly with a lower learning curve. Those
people migh
& Singh) - w/which you
can even use shorthand, Perl-ish syntax...so the RegEx stuff is not
really new or a unique advantage of using JS within Director.
J
On Thursday, Feb 12, 2004, at 10:38 US/Eastern, Mark Jonkman wrote:
Hi Ross
I see a lot of merits of JS in Director. You open the doo
Ah, but is the PregEx shockwave as well?
On 2/12/04 12:57 PM, "2702NET" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth:
> Hi Ross,
>
> You make some interesting points here...however, just wanted to mention
> for the record that you have the same RegEx power with Lingo using the
> free PRegEx Xtra (thanks t
Ah, you're right...good point...it's not.
J
On Thursday, Feb 12, 2004, at 13:18 US/Eastern, grimmwerks wrote:
Ah, but is the PregEx shockwave as well?
On 2/12/04 12:57 PM, "2702NET" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth:
Hi Ross,
You make some interesting points here...however, just wanted to
men
Hi Mark
I do agree with a lot of what you said about the benefits JS brings to the
Director table, but I'm still not 100% convinced. Now granted I've not had a
play with it yet so I'm not sure how complete the Javascript implementation
is, but I've still got "gimmick" circling my fevered brain.
D
You should check out the language reference pdf for mx2004... a LOT has
changed... '_movie.frame' replaces 'the frame', etc Whole
reorganization of object/method structure (for the better IMO), and
verbose syntax has been depricated, so you can't rely on it being around
for any future versi
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 02:21 PM, Mathew Ray wrote:
and verbose syntax has been depricated, so you can't rely on it being
around for any future versions.
Even for text and fields and all the things that ONLY verbose seemed to
work with...?
I know, RTFM. ;-)
--
Troy
RPSystems, Lt
I believe that was one of the big things with the new release...you
should never have to use verbose syntax again if you don't want to (and
indeed shouldn't).
~Mathew
Troy Rollins wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 02:21 PM, Mathew Ray wrote:
and verbose syntax has been depricated, so
Just got the email-
"Macromedia *annonce *Director MX 2004"
...must be the new JS ;)
Stephen
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lin
I believe that was one of the big things with the new release...you
should never have to use verbose syntax again if you don't want to
(and indeed shouldn't).
Unless part of your goal is to enjoy programming more, have faster
code, or have code that is more English readable.
[To remove yourself
On Feb 12, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Stephen Ingrum wrote:
Just got the email-
"Macromedia *annonce *Director MX 2004"
...must be the new JS ;)
That, or they're punning on MX's incipient availability.
(Google the old English "anon" sometime. ;)
-- WthmO
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change
So does Verbose syntax still execute faster than dot syntax? I would
think if they were moving to the dot-based world they would have
optimized it for such...
As far as readable, I feel like you can easily get into complex verbose
statements like 'put x into char[y] of z', which seems like a lo
> So does Verbose syntax still execute faster than dot syntax? I would
> think if they were moving to the dot-based world they would have
> optimized it for such...
I think they're about the same. Some people say dot syntax might be a
tad slower, but I've seen no evidence to back that up.
It al
I've been meaning to run some tests "when I get time." For now, I choose
to believe that there is no significant speed difference.
It isn't significant, but it is easy to show:
on timeit
t = "one two three"
m = the milliseconds
repeat with a = 1 to 10
c = char 2 of word 2 of t
en
> It isn't significant, but it is easy to show:
>
> timeit
> -- "824 1028"
I'd say that is significant. It shows dot syntax, in that example, to be
about 25% slower.
I ran it a few times on my machine to make sure the results were
consistent. They were:
-- "112 184"
-- "119 175"
-- "118 189"
--
might be
an obstacle for switching to JS (or a reason to check out using an
external editor).
valentin
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Holgate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:10 PM
Subject: RE: Merits of JS in Di
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 05:20 PM, Kerry Thompson wrote:
It isn't significant, but it is easy to show:
timeit
-- "824 1028"
I'd say that is significant. It shows dot syntax, in that example, to
be
about 25% slower.
Ugh. The "Zork code" really needs to go away.
"Put the key in the ba
On 2/12/04 5:32 PM, "Troy Rollins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth:
>
> "Put the key in the backpack."
I think I see a Grue.
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (Pro
MAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Valentin
> Schmidt
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Merits of JS in Director
>
>
> I've got the impression that syntax coloring and auto indent for JS code
> are still very rudimentary (no colori
> My current preference is to use JSL extensions and Dreamweaver plus
Rob
> Walch's Dreaweaver extension for editing JS Syntax files.
I couldn't live without a debugger--I'm too sloppy.
I assume you use the script files as includes. How do you debug?
Cordially,
Kerry Thompson
[To remove your
onkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: Merits of JS in Director
> Hi Valentin
>
> The script formatting for JS Syntax is a bit more rudimentary then
that of
> Lingo. But it does remember tab depth lev
ROTECTED] Behalf Of Valentin
> Schmidt
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Merits of JS in Director
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanx for the detailed reply. no, I hadn't read your article yet,
> although I had it already book
> Ugh. The "Zork code" really needs to go away.
>
> "Put the key in the backpack."
>
> I hate coding like that.
Zork Code? LOL! Not "Adventure Code"?
I prefer dot syntax. For me, it's easier to read. But then I'm a retread
C/C++ programmer. I'd like to do more extensive tests to see just how
mu
On Feb 12, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Kerry Thompson wrote:
Even before optimizing dot syntax, I would hope it would be completed.
Does anybody know if MX 2004 has made any steps in that direction? Can
I
do things like castlib[1].member[5].name?
-- Welcome to Director --
put version
-- "10.0"
put castlib(
> One of the main thrusts (shaddup, Grimm ;) of MX04 was plugging the
> holes (I've warned you already) in .syntax. You should find
> that a lot
> of the issues (!) with #field members have been addressed as well.
Great. That was one of the things I campaigned for when I was on the
advisory boa
Is there a dot or JS syntax equivalent of the 'last' keyword? I use dot
syntax for pretty much everything (like most I guess) except for the odd
thing like:
if the last line of x = "" then delete the last line of x
I know I can do the same with dot syntax, but not in one simple logical
statement
-- Welcome to Director --
put version
-- "10.0"
put castlib(1).member[1].name
-- "foo"
put the name of member 1 of castlib 1
-- "foo"
Returns "" if you do it on an empty member.
One of the main thrusts (shaddup, Grimm ;) of MX04 was plugging the
holes (I've warned you already) in .syntax. You shou
aOn 2/12/04 6:09 PM, "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth:
> issues (!)
Didn't get the gist (GIST) of this one at firstcourse now I realize we
both probably have em.
By the way, could someone enlighten me about the difference within the
moviepath or _movie.path on the mac vs th
You mean it wouldn't work with myWord.char[myWord.char.count] as last?
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning a
Dot syntax really comes into its own with lists and accessing 3D
members. Without dot syntax things would be painful, but it doesn't
mean you can't use verbose if you're in the mood to do so, especially
if you get a speed advantage.
Likewise with JS syntax, you could have script dedicated to
J
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 11:32 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
Dot syntax really comes into its own with lists and accessing 3D
members. Without dot syntax things would be painful, but it doesn't
mean you can't use verbose if you're in the mood to do so, especially
if you get a speed advant
Mark (and others),
Have you had a chance to play around with the new LDMs and confirm that
any existing quirks have been fixed? People like Rob Romanek have gone
through hoops to try to isolate and provide workarounds for them, and as
a result I shy away from using them in the off-case that I a
At 11:05 Uhr -0500 12.02.2004, Mathew Ray wrote:
Mark (and others),
Have you had a chance to play around with the
new LDMs and confirm that any existing quirks
have been fixed?
new LDMs ?
there are no new LDMs to my knowledge.
some quirks have been fixed. although not
explicitely for LDMs, but
Hey,
I've had a chance to play a bit with LDM's in MX2004 there still are
quirks but the best new thing is the Director DOM giving you direct
access to LDMs as in
_movie.sprite(x).someEventHandlerInTheLDM()
Not only that but you can store a true ldm reference in a variable and
access it from
Hey,
I've had a chance to play a bit with LDM's in MX2004 there still are
quirks but the best new thing is the Director DOM giving you direct
access to LDMs as in
_movie.sprite(x).someEventHandlerInTheLDM()
Not only that but you can store a true ldm reference in a variable and
access it from
On Feb 12, 2004, at 11:04 AM, Alex da Franca wrote:
but let's wait for the next director release and try out the other new
features of 2004 meanwhile ;-)
"Next" Director release? Why surely, Alex, you know Director is dead.
That's why they put JS in it -- they're going to drop Director in favor
> Subject: Re: MX 2004 LDMs (was: Merits of JS in Director)
>
> On Feb 12, 2004, at 11:04 AM, Alex da Franca wrote:
>
> > but let's wait for the next director release and try out
> the other new
> > features of 2004 meanwhile ;-)
>
> "Next" Direct
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 01:05 PM, Kraig Mentor wrote:
JS was actually put in to encourage the transition to VB as MS is
buying
Macr.
That's not even a little funny.
--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
JS was actually put in to encourage the transition to VB as MS is buying
Macr.
Could we not have a DOS syntax choice too?
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, em
On Feb 12, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
JS was actually put in to encourage the transition to VB as MS is
buying
Macr.
Could we not have a DOS syntax choice too?
I'm looking forward to the Assembly compiler, myself.
-- WthmO
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest
I was hoping SCHEME would be in the works somewhere too...
~Mathew
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 12, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
JS was actually put in to encourage the transition to VB as MS is buying
Macr.
Could we not have a DOS syntax choice too?
I'm looking forward to the As
> > JS was actually put in to encourage the transition to VB as MS is
> > buying Macr.
>
> That's not even a little funny.
Nor even true. Everybody knows Apple is MS's real target.
(Kerry ducks and runs)
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penwork
At 10:05 12.02.2004 -0800, you wrote:
JS was actually put in to encourage the transition to VB as MS is buying
Macr.
;o)
Kraig
Shouldn't this be lingo# or something?
daniel
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post message
> does anyone else feel dirty typing javascript into Director? :-)
Director gets scripted in Lingo and that's just the way it is - Javascript
stays on my web sites!
To be entirely honest I don't see the point in including Javascript as a
second scripting language for Director (or even adding a se
Ross Clutterbuck wrote:
To be entirely honest I don't see the point in including Javascript as a
second scripting language for Director (or even adding a second language at
all). I know it's been put in to speed up development progress and the ease
of using an establish, widespread scripting langu
> Why would an option to make the package attractive to a broader base of
> people be considered an insult?
In my haste to be a moody sod I wasn't clear on that one - I was referring
to the employment prospects of a developer being more attractive by having a
broader base of skills.
I guess I'm s
On Feb 12, 2004, at 12:23 PM, Ross Clutterbuck wrote:
I guess I'm still smarting from the small-minded interviewer who
poo-pooed
me because he said "Visual Basic and Lingo are your primary skills?
Same
language aren't they?".
Wow. Guess it's a good thing the UK isn't too keen on capital
punishm
48 matches
Mail list logo
