> I'm amazed at the futility of Godot's labor allocation sometimes. In terms of C#, they did get funding of $USD24,000 for implementing it: https://godotengine

> I'm amazed at the futility of Godot's labor allocation sometimes. In terms of C#, they did get funding of $USD24,000 for implementing it: https://godotengine.org/article/introducing-csharp-godot/#acknowledgements https://godotengine.org/article/introducing-csharp-godot/#ac... And while I'm no fan of the language I do see the strategic value in potentially providing a migration path from Unity. > GDScript is a dead end, Do you mean in terms of it being a "single use" language? > and they're making their own physics engine? I think it's significant to note that in both cases--creating a new language & a "new" physics engine--it wasn't necessarily their first choice. As they've noted[0], they first used Lua & tried Python before creating GDScript. And for Godot 3.0 they moved to using the 3rd party Bullet Physics engine[1] but decided for 4.0 to move the focus back to the custom physics engine--in part because Bullet had "a shift of focus...away from game development". And in both cases they're developed the support in a modular fashion so that the defaults can be replaced (e.g. by Rust/Python/Nim and Bullet/Jolt) so everyone can be unhappy...or happy if they replace it by something they like, I guess. :D FWIW I don't think anyone particularly wants to learn a single use language but the number of comments I've seen that go "Ugh, I didn't want to learn or use GDScript but it turns out I like it" is non-zero. And, in my case, I can't argue with the results, even in GDScript for 3.0 the differences between Python & GDScript weren't huge & via the Editor integration it's just so easy to write...for the most part. (There's a reason I've spent so much time writing/using GDScript/FFI-bindings for pre-compiled library binaries--cos I'd rather write GDScript than any compiled language. :) ) With the improvements in gradual typing, optimization & quality-of-life features that come with GDScript for 4.0 it's even better. (As languages go I see Rust & GDScript actually make a nice pairing to move between--in part due to the nice `match`-based features in both.) Also, they did just spend four years developing a Vulkan-based renderer, which does seem like something game developers care about. Do you have any examples of what categories you see game developers caring more about that 4.0 hasn't improved on? Godot as an engine & a project is definitely not without its faults but I don't think "futility" and "waste of time and effort" are particularly fair/generous characterizations of the labor allocation. [0] https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.0/about/faq.html#what-were-the-motivations-behind-creating-gdscript https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.0/about/faq.html#what-were... [1] https://godotengine.org/article/godot-30-switches-bullet-3-physics/ https://godotengine.org/article/godot-30-switches-bullet-3-p... (See note on page re: 4.0.)