Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 35: Line 35:
   |title  =  <nowiki> Nasal must go </nowiki>  
   |title  =  <nowiki> Nasal must go </nowiki>  
   |author =  <nowiki> Beaver </nowiki>  
   |author =  <nowiki> Beaver </nowiki>  
  |date  =  Oct 6th, 2016
  |added  =  Oct 6th, 2016
  |script_version = 0.40
  }}</ref>
It is really important to note that in a small application which is probably 1/10 or 1/100th the sie of FlightGear, this (supporting Python) was a truly massive undertaking to make these changes ... on the order of 2-3 months of pretty much non-stop effort.  For FlightGear it would be almost insurmountable.  I think it's an interesting topic to discuss in theory.  We can point to examples and all the good things that python could bring to the table.  However, we can't get around the fact that this could be a multi-year effort to do the conversion in a way that truly modernizes FlightGear and truly leverages all the good aspects of Python ... and during that 'under construction' period of a year or more, most of FlightGear would be broken.
Edward came up with an alternative scheme where he built a python interface to the existing C++ property tree and some hooks to run python scripts, but still ... dropping nasal and converting to python requries porting AND carefully testing all the scripts though all their code paths and edge cases.  Just that would be a massive undertaking, and it wouldn't be fair to just port the core nasal, and hang all the aircraft and scenery developers out to flap in the wind to figure it out for themselves.<ref>{{cite web
  |url    =  https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=296166#p296166
  |title  =  <nowiki> Re: Nasal must go </nowiki>
  |author =  <nowiki> curt </nowiki>
   |date  =  Oct 6th, 2016  
   |date  =  Oct 6th, 2016  
   |added  =  Oct 6th, 2016  
   |added  =  Oct 6th, 2016  

Navigation menu