20,741
edits
FGPythonSys: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Dependencies
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
== Concerns and Issues == | == Concerns and Issues == | ||
=== Dependencies === | === Dependencies === | ||
{{FGCquote | |||
|1= For one it add another huge dependency. Also, like Thorsten stated, there is a real possibility that a particular aircraft will end up requiring some obscure python module. If you add Python support by default you will see people using it for their aircraft. | |||
|2= {{cite web | |||
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34790779/ | |||
| title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] A FGPythonSys implementation: The embedded | |||
Python interpreter as a FlightGear subsystem.</nowiki> | |||
| author = <nowiki>Erik Hofman</nowiki> | |||
| date = Jan 24th, 2016 | |||
| added = Jan 24th, 2016 | |||
| script_version = 0.23 | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | {{FGCquote | ||
|1= I am happy with N different /optional/ languages being supported, but ideally through an RPC mechanism which is language neutral, hence my email about message-passing designs. I feel pretty strongly we do not want multiple /mandatory/ languages for core features of the simulator. In Qt we had a webkit dependency which required Ruby, Perl *and* Python to compile on Windows and the backlash from the developer / user community was extremely large. | |1= I am happy with N different /optional/ languages being supported, but ideally through an RPC mechanism which is language neutral, hence my email about message-passing designs. I feel pretty strongly we do not want multiple /mandatory/ languages for core features of the simulator. In Qt we had a webkit dependency which required Ruby, Perl *and* Python to compile on Windows and the backlash from the developer / user community was extremely large. | ||
| Line 191: | Line 204: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
=== Security === | === Security === | ||
{{FGCquote | {{FGCquote | ||