Nasal for C++ programmers: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 130: Line 130:
* Often, most high quality examples of Nasal code were written by people who also happened to be core developers.
* Often, most high quality examples of Nasal code were written by people who also happened to be core developers.
* So it's way too simple to say that forum users are writing Nasal because they feel it's "just better". And, clearly, nobody on the forum wants to replace fgfs.exe with "nasal.exe"[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38172.html]. It's really just polemics to suggest that forum users feel "core=bad" and "nasal=good".
* So it's way too simple to say that forum users are writing Nasal because they feel it's "just better". And, clearly, nobody on the forum wants to replace fgfs.exe with "nasal.exe"[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38172.html]. It's really just polemics to suggest that forum users feel "core=bad" and "nasal=good".
* For forum users, it all boils down to an accessibility issue: Nasal is obviously much more accessible than C++ coding.
* Yes, it's true, Nasal code makes the main loop non-deterministic, i.e. the garbage collector - but there are people currently working on improving the GC: [[How the Nasal GC works]].
* Yes, it's true, Nasal code makes the main loop non-deterministic, i.e. the garbage collector - but there are people currently working on improving the GC: [[How the Nasal GC works]].
* On the other hand, we also have tons of C++ code which is not using smartpointers and yes, which is leaking memory - in other words which is "non deterministic", too (definitely from an embedded developer perspective).
* On the other hand, we also have tons of C++ code which is not using smartpointers and yes, which is leaking memory - in other words which is "non deterministic", too (definitely from an embedded developer perspective).

Navigation menu