> "IIRC, Sweeney said (on Twitter) that in the past, it was a burden to constantly be designing and maintaining language bindings for scripts, especially with a

> "IIRC, Sweeney said (on Twitter) that in the past, it was a burden to constantly be designing and maintaining language bindings for scripts, especially with a rapidly changing engine." Why do you think that is? I mean essentially these are specialized DSLs which you have to maintain bindings for...I can't imagine its easier to test you haven't broken your visual language. > "These are things that, even if they were available in a language like Lua, they would be intimidating and/or uncomfortable for the artists/non-programmers on a team. " Ok I can agree that languages don't always provide for the easiest mental translations, but I will say if you are not an artist, i.e. you are a verbal not visual thinker, blocks with lines probably are more intimidating, not less... In that same vein you probably shouldn't presume a non-programmer prefers visual metaphors - a lawyer or an accoutant probably finds a high level textual description more helpful (dsl, or config file). There is probably a better middle ground, i.e. lua text blocks which can be visually represented as boxes or as code unit files. The other supposed benefits you mention are more easily handled by a smart compiler - you can optimize what is inside the block but this will prove difficult to optimize across blocks - whereas code is arguably already broken down to its simplest form, so the whole thing can be optimized (plus, interpreters can do nifty runtime optimizations compiled languages just don't get)