Re: Scripting

[Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net>]

Jan Ekholm wrote:

> You don't need to do "unsafe memory tricks or complicated pointer work" in
> scripted language...

No, no, no.  You *CAN'T* do "unsafe memory tricks or complicated pointer work"
in a scripted language - so you *DON'T*.

That means that you have to approach every problem the long way around when
a smaller, cleaner solution was right there within your grasp if only your
language wasn't playing nursemaid to you all the time.

In a language like C++, you aren't *forced* into these practices, you can
certainly take a 'low risk' approach to these kinds of problems - it's
just that the language treats you as an adult and lets you take the
risk and the responsibility if you feel up to it.

This isn't really an issue of interpreters versus compilers though.
The reason people don't write games in fully compiled Pascal are the
same as the reasons people don't write games in interpreted JAVA.
 
> My main issue here would be the fact that some developers seem to directly
> skip over scripting languages as options.

Yes - it's a matter of experience and the advice of others who know.

Um - scripting and 2Hz update rate or compiler and 30Hz...hard call.

> Granted, you've all managed to
> convince me of the necessity for a compiled language for more complex 3D
> games, but I don't understand what's so wrong with writing simpler games
> in, say, Python? Why can't a simpler language that lets you more easily
> focus on the actual game be recommended to many/most developers?

Because it's going to force people to write simple, crappy games that
nobody will want to play.

We all want Linux to be a success - we want GREAT games - we want games
that people will play.

How many people play each of the 57 tetris clones? (That's not a made up
number BTW)

50,000 people downloaded Tux - A Quest for Herring within 3 days of
it's initial release.

> I understand that many don't like those languages, that's the way it is...

No - that's a completely untrue statement.

I don't dislike Python or JAVA.  They both have their place and are supremely
well engineered tools for the task for which they were designed.

I don't hammer in nails using a toaster and I don't write games in Python.
That doesn't mean that I don't use a toaster...and I certainly *DO* write
things in Python where it's appropriated.

Check out my PPE project - which uses Python as a scripting
language and does all the performance stuff in C++.

> ...but I don't udnerstand this fanaticism.

Well, it's a mailing list...duh!   :-)

All rational, well reasoned discussion comes over as fanaticism when
you can't hear the tone of the person's voice and distinguish an intended
joke from a heartfelt mockery of one's position.  There is no smiley for
"I'm telling you this to try to help you to understand my position".

> It's a bit like "real business
> applications are written in Cobol on a mainframe".

<shudder>  (BTW: It's COBOL - not Cobol)

*IF* real business applications are still written in COBOL it's because
it's the best language for the job...however, it's long ago fallen from
that lofty position (I hope).

----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
Mail : <sjbaker1@airmail.net>   WorkMail: <sjbaker@link.com>
URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org
       http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net
       http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net
       http://toobular.sf.net   http://lodestone.sf.net