3 ms·

> gdscript is not a serious option imo (stupid whitespace language..They need to drop it and focus on C# like Unity did years back with UnityScript.. Seriously

by ronsor 11mo ago

> gdscript is not a serious option imo (stupid whitespace language..They need to drop it and focus on C# like Unity did years back with UnityScript.. Seriously XNA and then Unity have cemented C# as the other language of game devs alongside C++. Even KSA's custom new engine is C# for example) I'm going to break this down: > gdscript is not a serious option imo Subjective, but fair enough. If this is a general argument against "scripting languages" versus more "advanced" languages, I should remind you that Lua and JS are still very popular languages in game development. > stupid whitespace language The only other big "whitespace language," Python, is immensely popular and widespread in server, client, AI, etc. applications. This is a question of taste, and has nothing to do with the objective quality of GDScript. > They need to drop it and focus on C# like Unity did years back with UnityScript The irony is that JavaScript (real JS, not a JS-like language) is almost certainly very viable in a game engine nowadays. > Seriously XNA and then Unity have cemented C# as the other language of game devs alongside C++. Even KSA's custom new engine is C# for example C# is popular for a variety of reasons (fast, mature ecosystem, etc.); however, "just use C# because others are using it" is by itself not a compelling argument. Syntax and language aren't that big of a deal for professional developers.

everyone 11mo ago
I disagree, going from C# with full visual studio (having a compiler with a lot of information about your code), and all of .net available, to gdscript feels like moving to a kids toy language like Scratch. I could do everything in gdscript, but it would be slower, more error prone and less maintainable. .. Ive done some js recently, I did a web app. and the difference is shocking.. * you can actually make spelling mistakes * there no find all references * You cant rename things * without types autocomplete does very little * without compiler autocomplete suggest random things based on spelling, not actually viable fields I could go on.. All these things add up to make the work go slower, and produce more error prone and less maintainable code. I thought the freedom of no types and less boilerplate would make js really fast to write but I found it the opposite in practice. I can write 1000's of line of game code in C#. Complicated stuff like procedural level generation and I dont even need to run it, usually its perfect 1st time. I couldn't do that in js, the IDE experience is not the same.

by ronsor 11mo ago

everyone 11mo ago

I disagree, going from C# with full visual studio (having a compiler with a lot of information about your code), and all of .net available, to gdscript feels like moving to a kids toy language like Scratch. I could do everything in gdscript, but it would be slower, more error prone and less maintainable. .. Ive done some js recently, I did a web app. and the difference is shocking.. * you can actually make spelling mistakes * there no find all references * You cant rename things * without types autocomplete does very little * without compiler autocomplete suggest random things based on spelling, not actually viable fields I could go on.. All these things add up to make the work go slower, and produce more error prone and less maintainable code. I thought the freedom of no types and less boilerplate would make js really fast to write but I found it the opposite in practice. I can write 1000's of line of game code in C#. Complicated stuff like procedural level generation and I dont even need to run it, usually its perfect 1st time. I couldn't do that in js, the IDE experience is not the same.