gaiman VS processing

When I was working on one paid git I’ve come up with a kind of engine that was driven by a JSON file. It was a kind of interactive game or very poor text adventure game. I’ve asked the person for whom I created this project if I can publish the game so others can use it. It was very cool. Later I came up with something even better. My own programming language that compiles into JavaScript. The project is in Beta version and I still need to work on the playground and documentation. You can check it out. Here is Gaiman’s GitHub repo. If you want to create a complex project with user interaction, it may be easier to do this with Gaiman, since it simplifies things. The same code in JavaScript will be much more complex.

I've created programming language based on Ruby that simplifies creating Terminal text-based games and applications in the browser. I've released first 1.0 beta version, but I'm still adding features and fixing bugs. I yet need to add more documentation and improve Gaiman playground.

The repo for the language can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/jcubic/gaiman the only documentation so far is the Wiki with Reference manual https://github.com/jcubic/gaiman/wiki/Reference-Manual

I've released the first 1.0 beta version of Gaiman. I'm doing small tweaks but it seems that all language features are there. But I need to improve code coverage so I know that everything is tested. And I need to stress test a bit my parser so I know that odd syntax combinations works.

I've just published the first beta version of Gaiman 1.0 to NPM.

in Gaiman language that compiles to JavaScript, I have syntax like this:

I've wanted to have my own programming language, that will make it easier to create text-based adventure games for my Open Source project jQuery Terminal. The idea for the language came after I've created a paid gig for one person, let's call him Ken, that needed this type of game, where the user interacted with the terminal and was asked a bunch of questions and it was like an adventure game, related to Crypo. The code I've written, that Ken needed, was data-driven by a JSON file. It was working nicely, Ken could easily change the JSON and have the game changed however he wanted. I've asked if I could share the code since it was a very cool project and Ken agreed that I can do that two months after he publish the game. But after a while, I've realized that I can have something much better. My own DSL language, that will make it simpler to create text-based adventure games. A person with a bit of programming knowledge like Ken, could easily edit the game, because the language will be much simpler than complex JavaScript code that is needed for something like this. And even if I would be asked to create a game like the one for Ken, it would be much easier and faster for me. This is how Gaiman programming language has started.

reply

I disagree. There are so many creative tools that are now online that you can access from your browser that were not envisioned in the original web. It is obviously true that not EVERY website is about creation (but to expect that seems unreasonable?), but even Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

Examples include products from big vendors like Adobe's Photoshop, to smaller products like SketchUp, to more indy generative art tools like https://processing.org and Strudel (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39924210).

Would processing[0] be a good fit? It's designed to be easy to use and learn but powerful enough for professional use. Very quick to get cool stuff moving on a screen and the syntax is Java with a streamlined editing environment.

[0] https://processing.org/

I would personally use the language Processing. It's the one I use the most. And it's relatively easy to start drawing text, squares, and do other kinds of things. (It's kind of like java, but without all the boilerplate code)

Processing (P5) had this: you can select any string of text in its IDE anl search for it in the docs, and if it's one of the built-in functions or constants it will open the associated static html page that came installed with the software, so no internet nor server required. And despite being offline you can still navigate the docs too. This feels a lost basic skill in static site generation these days.

It was the only creative coding framework that had complete, offline documentation like that at the time I might add. OpenFrameworks is still mostly autogenerated stubs for example.

IMO it was one of the things that gave Processing an edge in educational contexts over all alternatives. I was pretty sad to see p5.js not fully continue that tradition and require that you go online to read the docs, and that it's not a static website but that text is rendered with javascript when you open it (still complete and with examples though).

https://processing.org/

https://p5js.org/

Processing is very cool, especially if you like graphics.

https://processing.org/

Processing is a flexible software sketchbook and a language for learning how to code. Since 2001, Processing has promoted software literacy within the visual arts and visual literacy within technology. There are tens of thousands of students, artists, designers, researchers, and hobbyists who use Processing for learning and prototyping.

And it's not even their IDE. They just slapped some AVR compilers into Processing

https://processing.org/