20,741
edits
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting (view source)
Revision as of 11:56, 8 October 2016
, 8 October 2016→Motivation
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Many people argue that a more standard scripting language (like e.g. Python) would also attract more potential contributors to FlightGear, also the sizable community with 3rd party modules, means that new functionality can be much more easily implemented ("batteries included", and "no yak shaving" needed). | Many people argue that a more standard scripting language (like e.g. Python) would also attract more potential contributors to FlightGear, also the sizable community with 3rd party modules, means that new functionality can be much more easily implemented ("batteries included", and "no yak shaving" needed). | ||
== Considerations == | |||
# dependency on a huge number of external libs is considered a bad thing (TM) in FG, hence even if you convince people to implement language XY, you don't get to use all the libs in anything that goes to the repository | |||
# hence you're left with finding an algorithm that does what you want it to, and implementing that algorithm is the thing that takes a long while, not the week spent learning how Python syntax differs from Nasal syntax | |||
# but adding more scripting languages to FG means more complexity and more breaking points - so the benefit for whatever you add should outweigh the problems<ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=296252#p296252 | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: Nasal must go </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Thorsten </nowiki> | |||
|date = Oct 8th, 2016 | |||
|added = Oct 8th, 2016 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
== Challenges == | == Challenges == | ||