20,741
edits
Nasal for C++ programmers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Shouldn't we favor C++ over Nasal?
(First official Nasal.EXE release !! - i.e. covering a more and more common debate: http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38172.html) |
|||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
=== Shouldn't we favor C++ over Nasal? === | === Shouldn't we favor C++ over Nasal? === | ||
Performance-critical code should definitely be implemented in C++ space. Still, there are several options, such as dedicated C++ subsystems (SGSubsystem) or Nasal extension functions. | |||
Please, if you do know C++ and the SG/FG code bases, you are obviously | Please, if you do know C++ and the SG/FG code bases, you are obviously encouraged to contribute directly to the core source code - nobody is trying to keep people from contributing there - see [[Howto:Start core development]]. | ||
That said, among some core developers, there's apparently the misconception that other FlightGear contributors increasingly favor Nasal over C++. | That said, among some core developers, there's apparently the misconception that other FlightGear contributors increasingly favor Nasal over C++. | ||
Obviously, some core developers are particularly concerned about the amount of Nasal code added to FlightGear (i.e. the base package) recently. | Obviously, some core developers are particularly concerned about the amount of Nasal code added to FlightGear (i.e. the base package) recently. | ||
So to put things a little into perspective, trying to explain the current situation: | So to put things a little into perspective, and trying to explain the current situation: | ||
* We must not miss the fact that these are complaints about the plethora of Nasal code added to FG by '''non-core developers''', these are usually people who don't know C++, who don't know the FG/SG code bases and who don't know how to build FG from source or at least who don't regularly rebuild a custom binary from source. | * We must not miss the fact that these are complaints about the plethora of Nasal code added to FG by '''non-core developers''', these are usually people who don't know C++, who don't know the FG/SG code bases and who don't know how to build FG from source or at least who don't regularly rebuild a custom/patched binary from source. | ||
* It's not that C++/core developers suddenly decided to stop writing C++ code and instead use Nasal, Rather, the opposite is true, there are still a number of core developers who refuse to use Nasal at all and stated so publicly. | * It's not that C++/core developers suddenly decided to stop writing C++ code and instead use Nasal, Rather, the opposite is true, there are still a number of core developers who refuse to use Nasal at all and stated so publicly. | ||
* So let's face it: How many "qualified" Nasal coders can you name? How many Nasal developer are even able to program in C++, are familiar with the STL and Boost? How many Nasal coders would be potential C++ core developers? And then, how many of them are able to use git and gitorious? How many are actually able to build FG from source? | * So let's face it: How many "qualified" Nasal coders can you name? How many Nasal developer are even able to program in C++, are familiar with the STL and Boost? How many Nasal coders would be potential C++ core developers? And then, how many of them are able to use git and gitorious? How many are actually able to build FG from source? | ||