Modernizing FlightGear Scripting: Difference between revisions

Modernizing FlightGear Scripting (view source)

1,259 bytes added , 9 October 2016

20,741

edits

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
    |date   =  Mar 5th, 2009
    |added  =  Mar 5th, 2009
+  |script_version = 0.40
+  }}</ref>
+thinking purely on language syntax + interpreter engine footprint + seamless integration with flightgear + language capability/completeness: nasal may still be the overall winner.  Nasal is brilliant in a number of ways.  But to be fair, those are not the only considerations.  Don't be too quick to discount the community of knowledge, the documentation, the library support, ease of installing new libs with new functionality ... there are many reasons to consider a choice.
+For example: I might take a slightly longer way home from work so I don't have to take a left turn at an uncontrolled intersection during a busy time at rush hour.  Technically the first route is shorter, maybe even on average quicker, but perhaps I also consider stress levels and safety as part of the overall equation.  That isn't a direct analogy to nasal vs. python, just pointing out that a person's final decision may weigh additional more subjective factors, and that a normal thing that we humans do.<ref>{{cite web
+  |url    =  https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=296312#p296312
+  |title  =  <nowiki> Re: Nasal must go </nowiki>
+  |author =  <nowiki> curt </nowiki>
+  |date   =  Oct 8th, 2016
+  |added  =  Oct 8th, 2016
    |script_version = 0.40
    }}</ref>