Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hollywood" data-source="post: 456947" data-attributes="member: 7408">Well, scripting systems don't necessarily need to be pre-compiled.  Usually they are faster that way, but may not be as flexible.  The client-side java/vbscript in browsers or ASP/PHP are  examples of interpreted scripting [for benefit of non-technical people <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />] whereas JSP [its similiar to ASP/PHP but with Java as the scripting language which is superior to Java/VBScript of course] is pre-compiled.And yes, you are quite right... usually scripting means you only have to make changes and run or compile the new script.  But if a system is designed well, it may be very easy to add or change code to it.  At the distilled essense there isn't really a difference.  About the only difference is technical ability.And WoTC can argue itself blue as long as it wants.  But name me a language, scripting or not, that is human readable by someone without any technical ability at all [i.e. lawyers?].  COBOL and PASCAL come to mind as the top contenders for having a syntax thats closest to English grammar.  C, C++, Java, JavaScript all share a very similiar syntax which isn't close to English.   PHP is in a world of its own as is VB/VBScript.  Etc, etc.  And if you start using custom scripting languages [why? there are plenty of good ones to choose from] or say something odd like rules based scripting, it still incomprehensible to those without technical ability.Bottom-line is basically that the "rules" have to be in human readable form.  That could mean having the scripting source or that could mean the actual program souce available.  The latter is the way one open-source character generator could have passed compliance.But the other falacy of all of this is that no-one can copyright rules, only the specific explanation of those rules.  So anyone can express the D&D 3rd rules in whatever format they choose, as long as they do not use any WotC content whatsoever.  Same thing applies to algorithms... they can't be copyrighted, only specific implementations of them.  However, the catch IRT the SRD is that if you use any of the information in it, you are bound by the legal agreement that came with it that basically says you can't use explain, in any implementation, the character creation or leveling up process. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yeah, first one that came to mind. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Heck even flow charts are better than nothing!</blockquote>

Verification