Curtis L. Olson writes:
> I would argue that if we do embed a script interpreter it should be
> really small, tight, and light weight. 1Mb of compressed source seems
> excessive ... this is almost exactly the same size as the entire
> flightgear source, so we'd be roughly doubling the size of our source
> and the time to compile ...
Point well taken. I'd like to see a small interpreter, perhaps
100K-200K source -- I'm sure it could be done, even for ECMAScript.
> Also we need to consider that each new dependency we add
> significantly increases the barrier for new developers to get all
> the pieces in place to build their own executable.
I agree strongly, but we do need scripting to take FlightGear to the
next level. We've been abusing the XML a little, as Norm has often
graciously pointed out -- XML should be used for representing state
(data tables, etc.), and scripting languages should be used for
representing data. It is just as stupid to use XML for procedural
stuff
<for-loop>
<start-value>3</start-value>
<end-value>18</end-value>
<increment>1</increment>
<action>
...
</action>
</for-loop>
as it is to use a programming language for declarative stuff
inst = new Instrument;
inst.addLayer(new Layer);
inst.getLayer(0).setTexture(...)
> In light of this, having an external scripting system that uses a
> network interface becomes attractive. However, there can be
> performance issues with that which might be addressed by a built in
> script engine.
It's also a dependency problem, again. Once FlightGear starts to
depend on scripting, users are going to have to have a Java, Perl, or
Python environment set up on their computers (or an accessible
computer, anyway), and that raises a barrier for new users, which is
even worse than a barrier for new developers. Of the three, Java is
the most likely to be already installed on a user's machine, but even
then they probably have no idea how to use it.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
