Nice try, let me flip it right back at you : how telling of you to mix facts
and your extremely biased opinion while accusing me of the same :)
Not interested in debating this, never suggested Nasal should be dropped
from the main FGFS tree.
And even though I'm French, I've lived abroad all my life, so lack the
necessary chauvinism to entertain such a thought. (<-- that's a joke)
I did wonder at why Nasal, etc. but I don't have the presumption to say that
FGFS should move to Lua or the world will end ;)
Is that clear enough ? It's always been in the context of a fork, whether
public or private not being relevant.
As for "secret sources", they'll name themselves if they feel like it, can
you respect that, whatever their reasons ?
No smearing at all, btw : FGFS is great as it is, warts and canons of
elegances alike. And it can and will be greater, probably in ways that don't
suit either of us at times. And that's fine by me. You sure it's okay with
you ?
Again, thanks, it's been enlightening : makes it the more obvious that there
will be public forks off simgear/flight gear in the very near future, thus
becoming a matter of organisation and resources.
Hopefully, it can all be done under a common benign overlord so at the very
least, they can interact together over the wires.
I also answer further down, in between quotes.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Melchior FRANZ <mfr...@aon.at> wrote:
> FlightGear needed a built-in scripting language, and it has one.
> A compact, clean, elegant and fast one. In total there are at the
> moment more than 170.000 lines of Nasal in *.nas files and a few
> thousands embedded in joystick drivers, dialog description files,
> model animation files, keyboard.xml, mice.xml and several other
> files. Extension functions interface perfectly to the property
> tree, the event manager, the built-in XML parser etc. Nasal is
> very tightly integrated in fgfs and used all over the place.
>
>
> The Lua language is quite similar to Nasal, even syntax-wise
> (where there are differences, Nasal is better IMHO).
>
> Do we want two similar languages embedded in fgfs side by side,
> so that people can choose? Hell, no! This is just needless bloat
> ("re-invention of the wheel" is an understatement!) and it would
> be a source of confusion. On which basis would people decide for
> one or the other? Would we expect them to evaluate both languages
> and to find out which works better for them? Or just take a random
> pick? What would be the advantage? That people who don't like
> Nasal can have something that's quite similar? Doesn't sound smart.
> So, having both in FlightGear is clearly not desirable.
>
>
> Would we want Lua to replace Nasal?
Again, never my intent : we're talking about a fork, a specialized version
of FGFS.
That said, if it's a developer's sandbox, facilitating end user choice of
"weapons" is a good thing : anything that prevents tight coupling of
conceptually separate modules is always smart.
I think even you'd agree on this :)
>
> Andy, the author of Nasal, is also FlightGear developer. He has
> done the integration in fgfs himself, he knows about our needs,
> he's almost daily in our IRC channel and always willing to answer
> questions or to improve the language. Lua just can't beat that.
> And it wouldn't be enough for Lua to be as good as Nasal, or
> slightly better. It would have to be vastly better to even be
> considered. It's an uphill battle and it doesn't look good for
> Lua.
Good to know Andy is around.
But not sure Lua (or any established scripting solution) wouldn't beat that.
Your rationale is fundamentally flawed, as cohabitation is not about which
is better (neither), but rather what do people want, what will they use, and
if you build it, will they use it ? Answers to all such question are never
black and white, or resounding yes and no in any absolute fashion.
Btw, if I come away from my experimenting with Nasal converted, I'll be the
first to say it loud and clear :)
>
>
> What are Lua's advantages? Random picks from Nicolas' email:
Arumph. Nothing random about your picking, at least be honest about it :)
>
> "debugger": Sure, that's nice. We have several debugging
> utility functions for Nasal, but no debugger. But then again,
> I wouldn't often have needed one. And to quote a fellow fgfs
> developer after he had read the Lua wikipedia page: "No wonder
> they need a debugger!" (People might be thrilled to learn that
> Lua's arrays (which are emulated with hashes, because there
> are no arrays at all) start with index 1 (Shudder!). But that's
> not all: you *can* write to array[0] and don't get an error
> message, but Lua will silently throw the value away and return
> nil if you read it out! Yes, Lua badly needs a debugger! ;-)
You quote, and sin again with what you reproach of me : sources ;)
To boot, it's tendentious information....
Quote from the horse's mouth, not someone's else reading of wikipedia !!!
Or don't moan about the fact that I didn't provide sources :) (or stop
holding people to higher standards than you hold yourself, or both)
That's really telling...
http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/ <-- version I will use in my experimenting
Incidentally, you realize that non programmers find starting at 1 natural,
and obviously, I had the same initial reaction to Lua, having learned to
code nearly 30 years ago (yep, I was 9) : one grows used to one's truisms.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be flexible ;)
I hated array index starting at 1, but since as you already mentioned,
they're not really arrays...
Nearly every coder has the same reaction.
Nasal also needs the debugger and better sandboxing : making a parsing error
a fatal exception is not a long term solution...
Otherwise C and C++ don't need debuggers either after all, and comp sci
students should learn even less assembly than they do now ?
It's code or it's not, know what I mean ? Backarsed elitism regarding
scripting languages is really, really misplaced.
They all need proper development tools when used as such, that's a non
brainer.
And another reason to lever existing solutions rather than roll your own,
which is basically all said.
Really, anyone wonder why I didn't want a pissing context : any rational
argument can and will be entirely debunked by another rational argument.
Nature of the beast.
Problem is when you mix in perception and matters of taste in there, which
is bound to happen.
And no, I'm not surprised Melchior : you have time to play language police,
but no time to write docs, right ?
>
>
> "documentation": True. Nasal could use some more. Nicolas could
> spend some of the time that integrating Lua would have taken for
> writing Nasal documentation. :-)
You have to be kidding...
>
>
>
> These two points were the only clear advantages. What about
> the rest:
>
>
> "faster than nasal (that's an opinion, [...]": Exactly. Just
> an opinion, with no benchmarks to back it up. And even if it's
> slightly faster: the Nasal execution time is *not* a bottle-neck
> in fgfs by any means.
I'd love to see your profiling listings, on all supported platforms to that
effect :)
In my empirical experience, it's the number one cause of stuttering and
performance slowdowns (cue in wildfire)
I said experience, not evidence :)
Just because you say it's not a bottleneck, doesn't mean it's not.
Otherwise, you're guilty of the same sin you accused me of : opinion not
backed by fact.
Thanks in advance for the profiling listings on windows, linux and MacOS X
:)
And not just one run on each platform, more than one machine and use case
per machine, etc.
Otherwise, you can't really say they're valid, right ? You know that, right
?
>
>
> "C API that allows loading of C/C++ modules through Lua": That's
> seriously presented as an advantage? It means that we would in no
> time see fgfs aircraft coming with binary blobs that users are
> supposed to install, but which they can't explore. That's not
> only dangerous, it also undermines FlightGear's Open Source
> character. This misfeature (in our context) alone should be
> enough to reject Lua! That's a gift for commercial freeloaders,
> not something that we profit from. If something needs to be fast,
> then we can code it in C++ right away, and make it available to all
> aircraft.
>
Document "our" context, or is it again your veto power rearing its ugly head
?
e.g you immediately jump into the possibility of abuse of the facility by
"commercial freeloaders"...
Not what I had in mind, neither is the following example (not a fan of the
scheme, the idea is alluring indeed) : allowing current commercial
exploitiers of FSX or earlier version of the sim to bring their a/c to FGFS,
something Curt himself expressed interest in, and whose opinion is worth a
lot more than yours for many in this community, under their current scheme
of protection through obfuscation (yes, it's useless in most cases, as you
know, but they could have that cake if they wanted to).
If the project's creator, and afaik, still manager/benign overlord to this
day, is interested in growing FGFS through the demise of MSFS, should make
you reconsider the words "not a game, not a biz".
One, the latter is not quite true, since quite a few community members have
done and are doing professional, remunerated work with it, maybe even
yourself ?
>
>
> "user community": Nasal and FlightGear have their own user communities,
> thanks. Nasal isn't FlightGear only. It's used in other projects as well.
> And the Lua community wouldn't buy us much either. We wouldn't want that
> aircraft depend on external Lua modules, which users would have to
> download from www.luarocks.org or wherever and install them just to
> fly that aircraft. People contribute to fgfs because they want to,
> not because they are already familiar with its scripting language,
> which is easy enough to learn.
>
> You don't get it, nothing I can do about it.
>
>
> * Nicolas Quijano -- Wednesday 04 March 2009:
> > I really didn't want to get into that kind of argument (language
> > comparisons, etc)
>
> How telling!
No, it's called being polite. Something you're not familiar with : no
politics, no religion at the dinner table.
Admittedly, I also failed in that regard, as I clearly said in that same
email.
You try hard to be like that, or it comes naturally to you ?
>
>
>
>
> > In the game biz, it's never the best solution to roll your own [...]
>
> FlightGear is neither a game, nor a "biz".
Who said it was ? Can't someone retell his own experiences and where he's
coming from without it being unduly distorted ?
And again (!!), there are commercial interests in FGFS community (not me)
and with some wanting to lever MSFS demise, interest in furthering the
"near-game" status of a basic FGFS release : it is details mostly to make it
a true, and way better, MSFS alternative, thanks to the hard work of all
involved, including you and everyone else, but ultimately thanks to Curtis
for starting it all a decade ago.
Probably unacceptable for you, right ?
>
>
>
>
> > And no, nasal is not really crucial, at least not with jsbsim.
> > Why was Nasal chosen in the first place ? Wasn't it to supplement a
> > fledgling FDM module at the time, yasim, that was lagging behind jsbsim
> and
> > its property system ? Or so I've inferred and been told :)
>
> First: the property system was adopted *by* JSBSim. It's not something
> that JSBSim brought to the project. And second: Nasal has nothing to do
> with YASim other than it's by the same author. It doesn't have much to
> do with FDMs at all. It's used all over the place. Who was the source
> of this nonsense again?
Archives & other tidbits written all over the vast world of FGFS
(mis)information.
Maybe you should get off your virtual throne and get down and dirty with
documentation...
Or is it so beneath you or uninteresting that it's better to keep on harping
that the newcomers should do it ?
Do you realize how totally crazy this sounds, especially in the context of
Nasal (language, internals, APIs from two POVs : dev and user) ? You want
people who don't know anything about it to document it ?
You'll send PMs about language constructs, and how people should code, but
you won't do the documentation work ?
Why not post it in the relevant thread on the forums then ?
Oh, maybe because like my so-called "sources" you have your own reasons to
reply privately ?
Even though, you should have done that documentation work before laying down
a single line of code, right ? ;)
Man, you're a piece of work !!! ( I know I am, btw )
>
>
>
> > it doesn't bother anyone that the overall feeling given by more
> > than a few longstanding community members is that Nasal is NOT well
> > liked, quite the contrary ?
>
> More from the uninformed source? Where's the evidence? Names please!
> Nobody ever said that s/he doesn't like Nasal to my knowledge. Many
> people said over time that they like it. I do. I can't stand the
> Lua verboseness ("end end end").
Sources, plural. And well, you're having a really selective memory, if you
can't remember...
Again, when people contact me off public channels, I respect the implied
discretion.
If you don't get that, you have no business interacting with others.
Seriously. .
>
>
> All of Nicolas' smearing seems based on false presumptions and
> questionable secret sources. Or are they just made up?
>
What smears ? I've gone out of my way to outline how great and how far FGFS
has come in the last few years : so much so, it floored me. Or is it a
matter, Melchior, that critique by you and your chosen few acolytes is
enlightened but by any other person, it's smearing, libel, lying or
fabrications ?
What you're doing is indeed smearing : maybe you should try to see the other
world with other lenses than yours. We're not all paranoid, delusional
freaks, you know ;)
>
> Regarding my "veto" power (or lack thereof): It was clear that despite
> quotes and smiley this would make some people foam at their mouth. Of
> course, there's no formal veto power. But I am pretty sure that there
> will be no official FlightGear with Lua *and* me as an active contributor.
>
> Sure, the project could easily survive without me. Many people wouldn't
> even notice. (Just like it survived without Lua or Nicolas as a
> contributor. Has he even contributed a single line of code yet?)
Wow... Basically 99.99999999% of FGFS users have no right to speak up, then
?
And well, you still use LOC as a metric ? Mention benchmarks, but don't
provide anything to back up your performance assertions.
Maybe should use that stick on yourself :)
When you tell someone to fuck off and put a smiley at the end, it still
means fuck off. (sorry for the language, but you're either disingenuous or
clueless on social behavior)
Watch out, some might push for Lua based on that last fact : you being gone
:) (<--that's really a joke, but like all jokes...)
As for me, I'm insignificant, even more so now that you have ruled me so ;)
And who said anything about official Flight Gear ? (again)
Ultimately, and repeating myself : thanks, it's been eye opening :)
<--that's sarcasm
*To all :* I never even considered pushing for the change, simply because I
have no business doing so. I haven't even suggested it, I've been talking
about a fork, and only a fork. Whether the change was adopted further would
NOT be up to me (or Melchior)
To that end, I asked for information on Nasal internals, short of reading
the source, which I'll do in time.
My second email, the long rant, might have been clearer, I guess.
I will start with adding Lua to my fork, and then proceed on with a partial
replacement of Nasal as well as tailoring of the project to our project's
need, including complete script porting of a few a/c from different authors
to that codebase.
We'll see then how far we take it, etc.
In case you hadn't guessed or figured it out,the project is post-WW2 air
warfare centric (for starters), with emphasis on the pre fly by wire era.
More on this later, and off-list.
I think that I'm probably not the only one in thinking that making
specialized versions of Flight Gear that focus partly on being easy to use
for end users, whether they're just pilots, etc. or engineers/developers.
It's not a dev sandbox to a lot of its users, whether the prevalent
philosophy adresses it or not.
And fitting it all together is making all sorts of groups and individual
users unhappy, for vastly different reasons.
This is separate from adding (or for those who insist on seeing that way,
changing) scripting languages.
This is why I didn't want to do a langage comparison, whatever General
Melchior or anyone else thinks.
And also, because I can't give Nasal a fair shake, something the
disingenuous one chose to ignore, in more ways than one. Not interested in
"smearing", but I stand by everything I said : saying making Nasal was a
"mistake" doesn't take anything away from the work done to create and get it
to where it's at. It certainly doesn't make it or mean that's it bad.
Pretending I said otherwise is very dishonest.
I thought I'd been quite clear, but obviously not enough :)
Again, this thread should die : it's run its course.
I apologize for triggering such a reaction.
And apologies to myself for wasting precious time on writing a long email,
again...
Wish I hadn't, but since it's done, oh well <press send>
Cheers,
Nic
--
Be Kind.
Remember, everyone is fighting a hard battle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
