[insomniac]

Reasons to vote Trump

 

[derk]

Reasons to vote Trump

Actually he has very legit points about the social environment...

 

[insomniac]

Actually he has very legit points about the social environment...

This is the way to derail all threads m9

 

[derk]

This is the way to derail all threads m9

There was supposed to be a spoiler but they don't seem to work anymore. Below will be a spoiler, lets see if it works.


EDIT: It doesn't. Try.

 

[qosmiof2]

There was supposed to be a spoiler but they don't seem to work anymore. Below will be a spoiler, lets see if it works.


EDIT: It doesn't. Try.

Spoiler

BANANA

 

Spoiler

BANANA

 

[trigoon]

But what if they're carried out in a non-specific order, depending on the conditions?

You cannot click the fletching interface before you use logs with a knife. You cannot deposit the bows into the bank before you open the bank. Just because there are logic gates determining when to perform the actions, the actions are still always in sequence.

 

[arbiter]

Client should be bot, "bots" should be skrepts. But that's too mainstream.

By that definition itself, the client cannot be called a bot as it does not "behave like a player in some computer games." The client does nothing at all but establish the platform with which bots can be run. The client has no in-game behavior without external bots, and thus cannot be called a bot itself.
 

Incomplete definition is incomplete. Any freshman in computer science can tell you that "script" is reserved for code that is interpreted at runtime. Quoting oversimplified definitions from a dictionary designed for brevity and understanding for the general masses won't get you far in arguing your case.

 

[aquatic chicken]

Yes, this is correct; there is absolutely no reason to use the term "bot" when script is not only the universally accepted term, but is the more appropriate term as well. As someone said earlier, you might be able to make the argument that "agent" might make more sense, but that would imply that RuneMate is an AI, which it most certainly is not.

In computing, the term "script"is defined as code that is written using an application-specific API with the intention of being executed by that application. Specifically, an application provides a foundation for executing actions in a specific way for a specific purpose, and a script is written to utilize this functionality. RuneMate scripts (yes, they are scripts, not bots) fit this definition perfectly; they run using RuneMate's API, and are what make RuneMate useful.

Saying that they aren't scripts on the grounds that they are compiled rather than interpreted is absolutely ridiculous, because RuneMate still has to interpret the commands that the script is sending to it (in the form of methods). It just so happens that instead of using an application-level interpreter, RuneMate uses Java and reflection to define and interpret the actions.
 

By that definition itself, the client cannot be called a bot as it does not "behave like a player in some computer games." The client does nothing at all but establish the platform with which bots can be run. The client has no in-game behavior without external bots, and thus cannot be called a bot itself.

RuneMate most certainly does do more than just establish a connection to the game. When you run a script, that script merely contains a set of instructions to be interpreted by RuneMate. Sure, scripts tell RuneMate what to do and in what order, but RuneMate is what is actually doing the actual work. In no way does a script interact with RuneScape directly; everything goes through RuneMate, which is why a script is a script, and RuneMate is a bot.

 

[slashnhax]

Yes, this is correct; there is absolutely no reason to use the term "bot" when script is ... the more appropriate term as well.

The issue, and Arbiter points it out in the OP, is that there's a simple difference between a Compiled language and a Scripting language, and that's what he's basing his argument that what are commonly called scripts are compiled, and therefore not scripts by that definition.
Your argument that Agent would imply that RuneMate is an AI would only apply if they were called Intelligent Agents, and it seems they meet the expectations of a Software Agent.

It really all comes down to where you draw the lines. If you argue that "an automated series of instructions performed in a specific order" defines a script, and that

Just because there are logic gates determining when to perform the actions, the actions are still always in sequence.

then wouldn't any program be considered a script, except for learning AI?

 

[trigoon]

The issue, and Arbiter points it out in the OP, is that there's a simple difference between a Compiled language and a Scripting language, and that's what he's basing his argument that what are commonly called scripts are compiled, and therefore not scripts by that definition.
Your argument that Agent would imply that RuneMate is an AI would only apply if they were called Intelligent Agents, and it seems they meet the expectations of a Software Agent.

It really all comes down to where you draw the lines. If you argue that "an automated series of instructions performed in a specific order" defines a script, and that

then wouldn't any program be considered a script, except for learning AI?

No. A calculator program like the one that comes with most OS's is not a script. You can press the buttons in any order you want and perform whatever operator you want to. The calculator program is not doing the same thing in sequence over and over again unless you tell it to.

 

[aquatic chicken]

The issue, and Arbiter points it out in the OP, is that there's a simple difference between a Compiled language and a Scripting language, and that's what he's basing his argument that what are commonly called scripts are compiled, and therefore not scripts by that definition.

Yes, and I am saying that this argument is flawed on the grounds that the basis of the argument is false. Some scripting languages are interpretted at run-time, but not all.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 definitive examples of compiled scripting platforms:

1. Unity
2. Galaxy (StarCraft II)

How scripts work in Unity:

1. User writes script in C# using the Unity API and any additional C# resources required
2. User places the script in Unity's "scripts" folder
3. Scripts are compiled into intermediate byte code, which is then interpreted and executed by the VM at run-time
4. Unity uses C# reflection to load and then execute the scripts when specified by the user

How scripts work in RuneMate:

1. User writes script in Java using the RuneMate API and any additional Java resources required
2. User places the script in RuneMate's "scripts" folder
3. Scripts are compiled into intermediate byte code, which is then interpreted and executed by the JVM at run-time
4. RuneMate uses Java reflection to load and then execute the scripts when specified by the user

 

[savior]

Yes, and I am saying that this argument is flawed on the grounds that the basis of the argument is false. Some scripting languages are interpretted at run-time, but not all.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 definitive examples of compiled scripting platforms:

1. Unity
2. Galaxy (StarCraft II)

How scripts work in Unity:

1. User writes script in C# using the Unity API and any additional C# resources required
2. User places the script in Unity's "scripts" folder
3. Scripts are compiled into intermediate byte code, which is then interpreted and executed by the VM at run-time
4. Unity uses C# reflection to load and then execute the scripts when specified by the user

How scripts work in RuneMate:

1. User writes script in Java using the RuneMate API and any additional Java resources required
2. User places the script in RuneMate's "scripts" folder
3. Scripts are compiled into intermediate byte code, which is then interpreted and executed by the JVM at run-time
4. RuneMate uses Java reflection to load and then execute the scripts when specified by the user

RuneMate does not interpret anything from a bot, it simply loads the class/compiled code and creates an instance of the bot and let it do whatever it is written for until it stops.
Your argument that bots would not interact with the game at all, but instead RuneMate executes the commands interpreted from the bot, is false. The only thing bots do is making use of RuneMate's api written for bots. There could potentially be bots that make use of native methods to interact with the game, if it would be allowed by the client developer of course.

 

[aquatic chicken]

RuneMate does not interpret anything from a bot, it simply loads the class/compiled code and creates an instance of the bot and let it do whatever it is written for until it stops.
Your argument that bots would not interact with the game at all, but instead RuneMate executes the commands interpreted from the bot, is false. The only thing bots do is making use of RuneMate's api written for bots. There could potentially be bots that make use of native methods to interact with the game, if it would be allowed by the client developer of course.

Okay well, if definitive evidence showing that Unity defines scripts in the exact way you claim they are not is not enough to prove that using the term script is correct, I don't know what will be. Just know that you are wrong.

 

[savior]

Okay well, if definitive evidence showing that Unity defines scripts in the exact way you claim they are not is not enough to prove that using the term script is correct, I don't know what will be. Just know that you are wrong.

With the (huge) difference that bots are made to automate processes done by users (exactly what RuneMate bots do), while the purpose of your Unity scripts is a completely different.
So if we look away from all that compilance stuff, bot is still the more appropriate term.

 

[trigoon]

With the (huge) difference that bots are made to automate processes done by users (exactly what RuneMate bots do), while the purpose of your Unity scripts is a completely different.
So if we look away from all that compilance stuff, bot is still the more appropriate term.

No, it's not.

 

[slashnhax]

Scripts are compiled into intermediate byte code, which is then interpreted and executed by the JVM at run-time

Isn't it a mix of interpreting and compiling by the JIT compiler?

The issue is, there isn't a specific set of rules that define a script, it's mainly our own interpretation. Some people and websites define the difference as interpreting vs compiling, some define it as whether or not that part is depended on by the system/environment/program it's a part of. Trying to prove someone wrong by citing sources that provide a conflicting opinion rarely works, unless your sources are more reliable or their sources are disproven. Otherwise the argument can be reversed and you end up going nowhere.

 

[trigoon]

By that definition itself, the client cannot be called a bot as it does not "behave like a player in some computer games." The client does nothing at all but establish the platform with which bots can be run. The client has no in-game behavior without external bots, and thus cannot be called a bot itself.
 

Incomplete definition is incomplete. Any freshman in computer science can tell you that "script" is reserved for code that is interpreted at runtime. Quoting oversimplified definitions from a dictionary designed for brevity and understanding for the general masses won't get you far in arguing your case.

Well, you must not have gone past freshman year CS because the quote you ripped from wikipedia in your OP changed since you posted it and now states that scripts are often (but not always) interpreted (rather than compiled).

Also, the definition is not incomplete and the dictionary google uses is by no means designed for brevity. In fact, google uses the Oxford American College Dictionary for their results.

You're wrong, and it's just depressing seeing you still trying to argue this and save face because you made the decision to make a thread like this as the admin of a botting website with false information.

 

[aquatic chicken]

Perhaps I should provide some clarification.

The term "script" is indisputably correct in the context of RuneMate. However, the term "bot" is also indisputably correct in the context of RuneMate. The reason why this thread was a bad idea is because you are swapping universally accepted terminology, and as a result, greatly confusing many of your customers. You may claim your main goal is education, but I think it is more than safe to assume that maintaining a client-base is also of importance to you, considering without one, you would have no one to educate.

To expand on the term "bot": RuneMate is a botting client. RuneMate chooses to use scripts to actually perform the botting actions, but that is the choice of RuneMate; it could just as easily performing botting actions itself, without the aid of a script. That said, RuneMate might also decide to allow users to use Python scripts to perform some other type of action, unrelated to botting. That would, of course, require some sort of clarification between "RuneScape scripts" and "Python scripts", as they both use the same name, but are entirely different products. However, until such a time occurs, my point stands that there is no reason to force such a confusing and unnecessary change upon your user-base.

 

[derk]

Perhaps I should provide some clarification.

The term "script" is indisputably correct in the context of RuneMate. However, the term "bot" is also indisputably correct in the context of RuneMate. The reason why this thread was a bad idea is because you are swapping universally accepted terminology, and as a result, greatly confusing many of your customers. You may claim your main goal is education, but I think it is more than safe to assume that maintaining a client-base is also of importance to you, considering without one, you would have no one to educate.

To expand on the term "bot": RuneMate is a botting client. RuneMate chooses to use scripts to actually perform the botting actions, but that is the choice of RuneMate; it could just as easily performing botting actions itself, without the aid of a script. That said, RuneMate might also decide to allow users to use Python scripts to perform some other type of action, unrelated to botting. That would, of course, require some sort of clarification between "RuneScape scripts" and "Python scripts", as they both use the same name, but are entirely different products. However, until such a time occurs, my point stands that there is no reason to force such a confusing and unnecessary change upon your user-base.

You'd be surprised how quick you can adopt a word.

I was no fan of the change at first, but after a week or two you use the word bot as if you always had.

 

[slashnhax]

Perhaps I should provide some clarification.

The term "script" is indisputably correct in the context of RuneMate. However, the term "bot" is also indisputably correct in the context of RuneMate. The reason why this thread was a bad idea is because you are swapping universally accepted terminology, and as a result, greatly confusing many of your customers. You may claim your main goal is education, but I think it is more than safe to assume that maintaining a client-base is also of importance to you, considering without one, you would have no one to educate.

To expand on the term "bot": RuneMate is a botting client. RuneMate chooses to use scripts to actually perform the botting actions, but that is the choice of RuneMate; it could just as easily performing botting actions itself, without the aid of a script. That said, RuneMate might also decide to allow users to use Python scripts to perform some other type of action, unrelated to botting. That would, of course, require some sort of clarification between "RuneScape scripts" and "Python scripts", as they both use the same name, but are entirely different products. However, until such a time occurs, my point stands that there is no reason to force such a confusing and unnecessary change upon your user-base.

I haven't seen that many people confused by it.