20,741
edits
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting (view source)
Revision as of 12:52, 8 October 2016
, 8 October 2016→Motivation
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
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). | ||
Thus, one of the key questions commonly posed is "''How coupled are Nasal and the scripting glue in FGFS ? Is there a clean break, or if not, can it be refactored without too much pain into something that would allow end dev users to use whatever scripting language they prefer, or have many modules already writen in, etc. If the coupling is not of the hair pulling type, it might be conceivable to integrate another scripting language alongside Nasal for starters, and in time, completely replace it if one is so inclined'' "<ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/21686158/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> [Flightgear-devel] Nasal alternatives : possible, of course, | |||
but trivial or hair pulling task ? </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Nicolas Quijano </nowiki> | |||
|date = Feb 26th, 2009 | |||
|added = Feb 26th, 2009 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
== Considerations == | == Considerations == | ||