RPG MAKER MV OFFICIAL PAGE

[Andar]

It clearly states that and HTML5 support. But doesn't state anything about the removal of Ruby. Which is why I need to have an official forward statment of that for "confirmation".

This is not an official statement, but Enterbrain would be extremely stupid to have two different languages for scripting in RMMV. It's not only about more to learn for users, it would also make internal programming a lot more difficult.
Simply because two different languages can't access each other's data directly, they would have to make special APIs for accessing and transfering data, create a lot of timing problems and other disadvantages.


So there will be only one language used - and they already stated that they use Javascript.

 

[Ramiro]

Simply because two different languages can't access each other's data directly, they would have to make special APIs for accessing and transfering data, create a lot of timing problems and other disadvantages.

So there will be only one language used - and they already stated that they use Javascript.

Unless you use something like .net, mono or parrot, (unity uses mono) wich allow you to use all languagues with the same CLR (Common language runtime)...

But they are not doing that, they use javascript because its the most popular language today, and is easy to port to other platforms.

 

[MikePjr]

The question is.. would they wanna go through the trouble to set something up just so people who use Ruby can keep using it?

I don't think they would.

I mean..

From what i hear.. JS is better.

What's wrong just using a new scripting lenguage?

I'm pretty sure JS is all we're getting...

But i'm fine with that.

There are too many cool things in place, that make it all worth it.

And hay, with some kind of JS plug in.. we could get animated monsters! I love that idea

(trust me i can make animated things.. been doing it with pre rendered graphics lately)

It just feels like there is a LOT of potential with this maker.

 

[Liak]

It just feels like there is a LOT of potential with this maker.

We say that every time. Which is a good thing!

 

[AwesomeCool]

Thing that is bugging me. (javascript question)

There are no maps *cough* or anything like hashes (from vx ace) in Javascript *cough* and the only way to emulate hashes is to use objects.  So is it possible to add objects to plugin parameters?  Or even arrays?  I can see this being a problem for complex scripts.

The question is.. would they wanna go through the trouble to set something up just so people who use Ruby can keep using it?

I don't think they would.

I mean..

From what i hear.. JS is better.

What's wrong just using a new scripting lenguage?

I'm pretty sure JS is all we're getting...

But i'm fine with that.

There are too many cool things in place, that make it all worth it.

And hay, with some kind of JS plug in.. we could get animated monsters! I love that idea

(trust me i can make animated things.. been doing it with pre rendered graphics lately)

It just feels like there is a LOT of potential with this maker.

No language is better then another (just different pros/cons). Also, javascript is one of the most highly disliked language for programmers (for many different reasons). 

 

[Ramiro]

From what i hear.. JS is better.

This is half a truth, half a lie. Some implementations like v8 (google) and SpiderMonkey (mozilla) have so advance VMs than ruby just cries for having something like that.

JS is a bit more difficult to program if you are new, ruby feels more natural, and has many cool features.

For the moment, even ruby 2.X is slower than javascript, but that could change at any moment.

They probably wanted to make an exporter with a language easy to embed in mobiles and mainly because, you know, javascript is the only script html5 supports...

What's wrong just using a new scripting lenguage?

Well, is the same as learning a new language altogether, do you mind to speak french from tomorrow because the world is bored about english ?

Granted, french and english are different  than ruby and javascript in complexity, but its almost the same problem...

 

[EternalShadow]

Well, just be thankful it isn't PHP you guys are going to have to be using...

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I would really wait to see what they did to JS and how they used it... It's definitely not the best choice out there but they have a reason, that's for sure. Just like why they chose ruby for the older makers.


As for hashes, yeah you will need to use objects. I do think you can pass arrays and objects as parameters. All other languages I've used so far allows it. Plus most classes are objects anyway.


Also, even if it is RGSS4, you would still need to somehow learn it. A good thing is if you get good with using one language, it becomes slightly easier to learn another. Just don't make me learn C/C++, coz I won't...

 

[Ramiro]

array = {name:"adik",age:"secret"}

psss, this are objects, not arrays, you can still use arrays just like ruby:

array = [1, 2, 3, 4];You can also use strings as key-value pairs if you want:

{ 'a key': 2, 'another key': 32 }And if you need a true "Hash" almost any platform and browser has Map now:

var hash = new Map();hash.set(23, 'Love JS');hash.set([1, 2], 'Hate JS');hash.get(23); // yay!The one out of course, is Internet explorer (but 11 can also do this, but not some functions)

You will have almost any feature from ruby, it is different in how you write it.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

yeah I skipped a few lines while reading, didn't notice that it was objects which was why I edited my post a while ago before I saw your post.


Objects seem to be able to do what ruby hashes do so far in my tests.

 

[MikePjr]

No language is better then another (just different pros/cons). Also, javascript is one of the most highly disliked language for programmers (for many different reasons). 

Who said anything about what is better than another?

Never mind... seems i did say that..

I just... did not see anything wrong with using something different.. granted this is coming from the same guy who hours before was crying cause he had just gotten used to Ruby.. But... maybe it won't be so bad?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

You said it

From what i hear.. JS is better.

Learning new things is one of the aspects of life. It might be hard at first, but I do think learning JS would be useful too.

 

[MikePjr]

I.. I was just going by all the positive feed back from other membrs over the course of this thread over the course of the last few days.

It sounds like it won't be so bad now.. though at one point i was upset about it... i'm like that at first when it comes to new things..

At first i'm like "NOOOOOOO!!! GLOB WHYYYY?!!!.

Then i'm like "well maybe it will be okay".

It's kinda like.. initial shock and then i gotta calm down.. and it helps when you see other members being positive about something.. rather than talking down to you just cause you had an opinon.

But there are too many cool posibilities for me to be too worried about it.

The more get's revealed.. the more I end up cool about it.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

With OpenGL rendering, no hidden classes etc, my excitement is now at 40%...

 

[Ramiro]

Objects seem to be able to do what ruby hashes do so far in my tests.

The only true problem, for javascript objects are:

var a = {'23' : 23}; //a['23'] and a[23] share the same key.Because they only use strings, this will not bother you almost 99.9% of the cases, because you try to use just one key type (all strings, or all numbers), just remember than 'false' and false, null and 'null' also share the same key.

Oh, null is in javascript like nil is in ruby

 

[EternalShadow]

With OpenGL rendering, no hidden classes etc, my excitement is now at 40%...

Was it higher or lower earlier?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

It was at 10% before hotfire.


@Ramiro - well yeah, as long as you don't use multiple types of keys. We can make our own hash-type object anyway.

 

[AwesomeCool]

I would really wait to see what they did to JS and how they used it... It's definitely not the best choice out there but they have a reason, that's for sure. Just like why they chose ruby for the older makers.

As for hashes, you could actually use "names" in JS arrays.

something like

array = {name:"adik",age:"secret"}Also, even if it is RGSS4, you would still need to somehow learn it. A good thing is if you get good with using one language, it becomes slightly easier to learn another. Just don't make me learn C/C++, coz I won't...

That is supposedly a bad way to do a map (it is abusing the fact that arrays are objects) and problems arise using it that way (ex. the length of the array used as a fake hash will always be 0).  So I think using a object would be better.  

Also, I hope we can have arrays of data entered as parameters for the plug-ins (it only looks like single values right now).

psss, this are objects, not arrays, you can still use arrays just like ruby:

array = [1, 2, 3, 4];You can also use strings as key-value pairs if you want:

{ 'a key': 2, 'another key': 32 }And if you need a true "Hash" almost any platform and browser has Map now:

var hash = new Map();hash.set(23, 'Love JS');hash.set([1, 2], 'Hate JS');hash.get(23); // yay!The one out of course, is Internet explorer (but 11 can also do this, but not some functions)

You will have almost any feature from ruby, it is different in how you write it.

Do web browsers each have different ways to setup and use maps?  What if mv wants to be compatible with all web browsers?  Gah, too many questions.  I have to see what they do with JS (and what version they use and such).

I just hope the plug-in parameter section allows complex data structures to be used instead of a huge list of integers/strings (and the like).

 

[EternalShadow]

Well, as long as I don't have to utilize arrays, I'll be fine

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Well you can still possibly edit the plug-ins directly, in case the plug-in manager doesn't support arrays and objects in the GUI.


Personally, as long as I can access the "scripts" directly, I wouldn't really bother using the plug-in GUI. I'm slower when I need to click a lot, then when simply using the keyboard