I think it would be nice if we shared our various library bindings... The ones that we are allowed to anyways. The general utility ones. For example, the std::vector and string bindings. I think part of the reason LUA (also Java and C#) is so successful is that it has a giant framework that takes the tedium away from development.

I agree. There should be some way to provide different bindings, that users don't have to manually compile to include. Perhaps create a generic C dll interface for registerring scripts through include statements. This way you can drop a dll into your exe directory and have support for that plugin if available. Some key plugins could be things like IO, HTTP, GUI Toolkits, etc...

That's interesting, but would be a job for the app, not angelscript. A sort of AS runtime environment, perhaps? Sounds like a great project.

On RainDog's point; anyone interested in my quick-binding facility?

Quote: Original post by lxnyce
I agree. There should be some way to provide different bindings, that users don't have to manually compile to include. Perhaps create a generic C dll interface for registerring scripts through include statements. This way you can drop a dll into your exe directory and have support for that plugin if available. Some key plugins could be things like IO, HTTP, GUI Toolkits, etc...

All of those things are things I currently have planned. The first on my list is going to be a rather limited GUI Toolkit based only on Dialog Templates.

I agree that a library of common utilities would make AngelScript much more accessible to newcomers. The problem is keeping such a library up to date with the rapid changes to AngelScript.

Maybe we could start some sort of repository where users can upload their code with descriptions on how to use them. It would also be necessary to have some way to maintain the already uploaded codes, so that the reposity won't keep a lot of code that's not working.

I say 'we' because I won't be able to do it alone. I already have difficulties to find time to work as much as I'd like on AngelScript.

Well, for example, if the people that contribute to the library still use their contributions, it does not seem to be unreasonable to expect them to keep it at least partly up to date with angelscript versions.