> I know, some people on the forum would like to eventually replace > fgfs(.exe) with nasal(.exe), because apparently everything is "just > better" (tm) when implemented in Nasal (core = bad, nasal = good). But I > really think this is a completely wrong direction - and harming the > project.
Could we cut the polemics? I agree with your main point that xml-configured hard-coded filters are the right way to implement and autopilot, and I also agree that in general low-level multi-purpose workhorse code should be C++ whereas Nasal is more suitable for the numerically cheap high-level specific functions. But there's just no need for such remarks here, they don't help in any way. Thanks, * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
