Scripting (Was First step or something)

[Mads Bondo Dydensborg <madsdyd@challenge.dk>]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Chris wrote:

> > due out in April). I like to squeeze every ounce of CPU performance I can, 
> > which means nothing wasted on scripting languages. But, that's just me.
> 
> No Mark, it's not just you. Here's my point of view (warning, long rambling 
> waffle incoming..)
> 
> you far higher performance, lower memory use, no need to write or try to 
> integrate an interpreter (which can be a headache on its own) and you can
> do so much more with compiled code in the same space. The single advantage
> I can see for interpreted stuff is platform independance - you only need
> recompile your game code if you are changing platforms whereas dynamic libs 
> require the game code and all the librarires to be recompiled. But if 
> portability or compile times aren't a problem then interpreted scripting 
> languaes are, IMO, a waste of good CPU cycles.

There are other uses than AI. I recently used python to load my maps for a
small 2 game. That was great, allowing me to edit the maps in emacs, and
reload them into the running game in seconds. Way faster than a
compile/link/reload .so cycle.

Mads

-- 
Mads Bondo Dydensborg.                               madsdyd@challenge.dk
You know you're a Linux geek when...

    You feel an undefined sense of shame when the advice you give on
    Windows 9X works.

                                                     - segfault