20,741
edits
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting (view source)
Revision as of 12:59, 8 October 2016
, 8 October 2016→Background
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Background == | == Background == | ||
FlightGear has built-in scripting capabilities using a custom ECMAScript-based C-like language called [[Nasal]]. | FlightGear has built-in scripting capabilities using a custom ECMAScript-based C-like language called [[Nasal]]. | ||
Over the last couple of years, we've seen some recurring debates in response to requests to provide support for additional scripting languages, possibly to replace [[Nasal]] scripting in its entirety sooner or later, i.e. "ditch" Nasal in favor of a more established, more mainstream, language like Python or Lua, with better tooling, support and documentation available for end-users, developers and other contributors. | Over the last couple of years, we've seen some recurring debates in response to requests to provide support for additional scripting languages, possibly to replace [[Nasal]] scripting in its entirety sooner or later, i.e. "ditch" Nasal in favor of a more established, more mainstream, language like Python or Lua, with better tooling, support and documentation available for end-users, developers and other contributors. | ||
Certainly a lot of people have become pretty familiar with Nasal's features in FlightGear, but this alone doesn't automatically imply that it's the best _possible_ solution. At the time when Nasal was introduced into FlightGear it certainly had been the best solution _available_. But hey, if Andy Ross or someone else would have had provided the close integration of any different, cleverly designed scripting language XY into FlightGear, then everyone would now happily script in XY and nobody would care about Nasal. This is what the discussion is about - or at least was meant to be. Currently there is no choice, if you'd like to script in FlightGear, then you'll have to use Nasal. It remains to be seen how many people are going to jump onto another scripting language if they had the choice to experience the difference.<ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/21746163/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] Nasal alternatives : possible, of course, </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Martin Spott </nowiki> | |||
|date = Mar 5th, 2009 | |||
|added = Mar 5th, 2009 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
Adding another language wouldn't be that hard. Actually, we had another one before nasal and beside nasal for a while. It was called PSL (plib scripting language), and we ripped it out because Nasal was/is just better and because offering and maintaining two languages it utterly pointless . <ref>{{cite web | Adding another language wouldn't be that hard. Actually, we had another one before nasal and beside nasal for a while. It was called PSL (plib scripting language), and we ripped it out because Nasal was/is just better and because offering and maintaining two languages it utterly pointless . <ref>{{cite web | ||