For your info, AWS is very pretty much like GACS, and even simpler, in a fashion similar to what Inpaws is like PAWS/DAAD.
I’m pretty sure that the Google translator can help in providing a first approach in english.
Nonetheless, in the spanish community we recurrently discuss about the “should someone undertake the creation of a new engine?” question. And the answer is alway NO.
My humble opinion is that, if you want to have fun with the project, you should go ahead but making your expectations level with the effort it will impose on you and with the real base of users it will be able to attract. Be positive that the impact of your work will be from little to none.
Our beloved Uto has so far created 4 engines in different moments of time, all based on the PAW paradigm: NMP, Superglus, NGpaws and, recently, a catch up on the unearthed DAAD called DAAD-READY that easily compiles to maaaany 8-bit and retro machines. We also have other legacy DOS-only PAW-likes: SINTAC, Caecho and a few more. The Inform side of the spanish community has developed translated libraries for 6 (InformaTE and InfSP). Very few have approached Alan, Hugo, Adrift and others.
But: the availability of tools has never boosted a reasonable production of games. It is really hard to attain an involved interest from authors.
And: in the end, almost no tools are used but for DAAD-READY and Inform.
Also: don’t forget that most authors start working with a certain engine and always try to push the limits. 'd say that 95% of the times authors reach a block point because the engine does not support the features their story require. Limitations bring authors down to earth and pfff they end up going back to inform or daad ready, if any, or just give up.
Tiny tonto, bare bones systems such as Scott Adams are no longer attractive. And once Inform, the Infocom games and the new ZIL system (ZILF) are in the open, why should anyone want to author a game anything less?
My own experience, being a PAW/DAAD sort of expert, is that once you choose a system you’d better invest time in learning it up, down and thru, and endure. I have recently turned my back on DAAD and decided to invest time in ZIL. I’m trying to self learn it all as the parser tech is superb and it can produce real gems with a level of sofistication in 64 kbs that DAAD can never dream of, in spite of the beauty of the language and the easy coding paradigm.
If I were you, I would try e.g. to create a new lang that can compile to DAAD READY code and, then, recompile from DAAD READY to its 8-bit and retro machine’s interpreters. The 95% of the work is already done. Devote your effort to a new DSL to your own specification, macro-translate it and let DAAD do all the hard work.
I’m just a simple author, but I’d never distract a single second from my ZIL learning time to try anoooother engine focused on 8-bitters. I wonder what would a new 8-bitter would do better than the long-tested, used and beloved, in sipte of its shortcomings, DAAD does so well.
Just make sure you’re sure on why you want to do it. It can be very frustrating otherwise!!!