[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Jan Ekholm <email@example.com> writes:
> > Oh, please. You can't possibly say that C++ is easier to use than a
> > script language?
> The problem is that a scripting language doesn't come for free and
> work out of the box. You generally don't do 'emacs mygame.py;
> ./mygame.py' and are done, instead you might want to use libfoo in
> your game. But libfoo doesn't provide bindings to python, so you have
> to create them yourself, which brings you back to good old C. And
> depending on what you are doing writing all these wrappers and binding
> code can be give you more of a headache than doing it directly in C.
> Using a scripting language actually placed a barrier between you and
> the C-world and crossing this barrier is not always that easy.
That's true. In the end, every reasonably common operating system
left in the world was written in C. (Certainly Windoze, Linux, BSD,
OS-X, Solaris and IRIX are almost entirely in C - I believe
Windoze might still contain some ObjectOrientedPascal).
Hence, all of the underlying libraries are bound to present a C interface.
Writing bindings for every other language just doesn't happen - so there
are always parts of the system that are forever inaccessible unless you
are prepared to go in and write a buttload of bindings.
> I am personally are very happy with writing all the core engine code
> in C++ and creating bindings to a scripting language for all stuff
> that should be dynamic and modifiable from a level designers
Yes - me too.
----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
Mail : <firstname.lastname@example.org> WorkMail: <email@example.com>
URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org
http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net