On Dec 12, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Marten Feldtmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12.12.2012 17:18, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >> IMO, that's non-sense. > > Well, that is a matter of view. no, it is not. Is a matter of making a technical choice or a marketing one. You know than while a lot before any scripting language were used in gaming the "common sense" and "marketing choice" was not using anyone because "it was too slow"? if we follow what marketing says, you should do your game in C++ (or even better, plain C) and provide hooks to lua/python/whatever... technically, you lose power by choosing lua (or anything) instead pharo in an application made in pharo. people choice depends much more on the success of the game/app than the platform to make it/create extensions. I can say it not because I have the theoretical tools, I say it because I can see my nephew (9 years old) creating plugins for one game he plays, then just jump to another game and make plugins with another complete different language... what has "the marketing" to do with that? he likes his games, and he like extend them... all the other is "collateral". > I've done this also with Lua and VASmalltalk and I did this not because of > other Smalltalkers in mind using my software, but perhaps of potential end > users willing to enhance the application in a more known language. potencial users who does not know about programming will feel a lot more comfortable smalltalk than ant algol-based language. > Because of this I also tried to use Rexx as an extension language, which is > in my view even more suitable to be used as an embedded language - but the > market decided to use Lua and not Rexx. no idea about REXX... but I repeat: if the game is successful, no one cares the plugin language (and lua is not the unique scripting language for gaming around you know that) Esteban > > Marten > <marten.vcf>
