SQS Syntax – Talk

Before anyone freaks, I am converting "script syntax" page into two seperate pages for SQS and SQf styles. Therefore this page looks exactly like "script syntax" until I am done and that page is deleted. Reason: The topics in the forums have alot of new people confused about which is a script and which is a function. Within each seperate syntax page, I will define functions and scripts as it applies to each style. --CrashDome 18:01, 19 December 2006 (CET)

Thanks! :) --raedor 00:02, 20 December 2006 (CET)

Freaks?!!!! Hey,thought i would stick my 2 cents worth in here. Way back hoz and I did some minor tests regarding this whole syntax debacle. While I do not remember the specifics, I seem to recall that using the wrong command to call a particular syntax(or a syntax that uses commands it shouldn't) causes a somewhat cryptic error message. My suggestion about a new .SQP extension was to help people know at a glance which command should be used to execute the file. I guess a proper header or readme accomplishes the same goal.--Mr.Peanut 18:24, 20 December 2006 (CET)

Pardon my question, but who decides the deprecation and inferiority of the SQS syntax? In my experience it works very well and the SQF syntax wouldn't add anything to the scripts I have made. Have official sources said that SQF should be used?

-Celery 12:06, 17 February 2007 (CET)

In this particular case? Hardrock (Wiki Sysop), exactly here. Though your question about bias or not is legitimate. Though I may add that deprecation does not mean that it doesn't work like it should. Technically it just means that in a future far from now it may - or may not - be gone/replaced/updated/etc. -- Manny 04:00, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

I guess it has been stated many times meanwhile, but here it is once more:

1) spawn/execVM use precompilator to higher extent (performance improvement over exec)

2) spawn/execVM allow multi-line commands and the syntax is better structured (easier maintenace over exec)

--raedor 00:45, 2 May 2007 (CEST)