Hi all, if you have duplicate code across many airplanes, let's say basic navigation or basic instruments, you may still want to write a pure Nasal library which holds generic functionality.
Another things is byte-compilation. This is a hybrid of classic interpreters and classic compilers. And it is e.g. done in Java or Python. I don't want to start a discussing here if they are good or bad languages but they seem to be successful with this approach because you have the flexibility which only a scripting language can gain and still the (nearly, around 99.9% maybe) full speed a native language, like C++ is, has. The drop-back of this approach is the initialization phase. But on modern systems it shouldn't take that long. And one thing more when I read the subject line which came across me: How many airplane developer will you loose if you remove the Nasal engine from FGFS because they can write Nasal code but not C++ code? Regards, Roland
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
