20,741
edits
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modernizing FlightGear Scripting (view source)
Revision as of 13:01, 8 October 2016
, 8 October 2016→Considerations
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
|date = Oct 8th, 2016 | |date = Oct 8th, 2016 | ||
|added = Oct 8th, 2016 | |added = Oct 8th, 2016 | ||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
Do we want two similar languages embedded in fgfs side by side, so that people can choose? Hell, no! This is just needless bloat ("re-invention of the wheel" is an understatement!) and it would be a source of confusion. On which basis would people decide for one or the other? Would we expect them to evaluate both languages and to find out which works better for them? Or just take a random pick? What would be the advantage? That people who don't like Nasal can have something that's quite similar? Doesn't sound smart. So, having both in FlightGear is clearly not desirable. <ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/21772281/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] Nasal alternatives : possible, of course, | |||
but trivial or hair pulling task ? </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Melchior FRANZ </nowiki> | |||
|date = Mar 8th, 2009 | |||
|added = Mar 8th, 2009 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |script_version = 0.40 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||