Hound dog departed

[KL-666]

Perhaps Hooray is on to something

Following Hoorays line of thinking, i think it is not a bad idea to split up the project.

Project 1 would be to explore what it takes to open up the core for other scripting languages, and decide if that is feasible without insane amounts of work.

Project 2 would be to decide which additional scripting language to add. Or all, or none. Everything is possible, when the core is prepared for other scripting languages.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Now here is someone who understood exactly why nothing gets going improvement wise in flightgear. Top!

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30606&p=296307&sid=2f08f4f7b6462790a7ed70a2a252f8bc#p296312

Followed by an exhausting description of the current state of the core by Hooray. I still have to read that three times over before getting it all. What i take from it now is that the core code is hard spaghetti. Take serious note of that, because it makes improvements hard. Then i agree with Hooray: Do not add another boil to it, but see to it first that the code gets organized.

And then unfortunately the umpteenth repetition of preconceptions has to follow from Thorsten. It is becoming such an old record, just ignore him.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

What i take from it now is that the core code is hard spaghetti.

For a long time now, I am finally more in sync with Curt. That post you quoted there, I can agree with

More importantly, if I recall correctly, this that the core code is hard spaguetti, is something @JWocky has been singing along for a long time.

[IAHM-COL]

Respect to Hoorays' post there, I have to add, that at least on the side of content
(aircrafts and scenery),
although in a "non-official" way,
the content has already been modularized. That's what FGMEMBERS achieves. And that's why managing the aircraft and the scenery the FGMEMBERS way is much more expedite, and painless; while at the same time the proper amount of integration (as in useability) remains.

[KL-666]

something @JWocky has been singing along for a long time

In Dutch there is an expression (my free translation): It is of no use to be right, acknowledgement of others that you are right gets to results. Meaning that you must take effort to convince others in a diplomatic manner (recognizing their idiosyncrasies), else your being right never leads to any result. And in the process you have to accept some compromise.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Just a little remark about

nagging actual developers

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30606&start=45#p296321

This is old thinking. No one expects any current developers to jump up. It would be nice if some get convinced, but it is not necessary. No, in the pool of 6000 or so members of the forum, i am quite sure there are some good qualified people around who stay silent now, because of the sick atmosphere. Change the atmosphere, and you win a lot.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

And another thing that is not fully correct in my opinion:

For now, it seems the ball is in the OPs court

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30606&start=45#p296325

Concerning the choice of scripting language (Python) it definitely is. But concerning getting the core's hard spaghetti organized, that is an issue "we" have to pick up anyway.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

When you stamp on a sapling, no kind words afterwards will make it grow into an oak..

[KL-666]

Admittedly i find it also hard to understand the language of Abassign. I suppose he uses a translation machine or so. But in this post his question becomes very clear:

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30626&p=296439&sid=4f1b8fa69144da7c058788ac0b7be212#p296430

He basically asks: What is the exact interface of a scripting language to the C core? From all the wool he got up till now, he distilled that the interface is purely properties. Now he seeks confirmation whether this is true, or whether there are other bindings. And if so what are these bindings. All in order to judge if it is worth the try for him to develop something in another language than nasal.

Actually i find this a very valid question to which he deserves a clear answer. What is the problem with answering it? Does no one exactly know? At least the ones talking most wool on the thread do not know. Thorsten has AFAIK no clue of what is going on in the C core. And Hooray seems to have only a vague oversight, resulting in him gratuitly referencing to all sorts of modules like HAL and others all the time. Which is not really answering the question.

The answers following this clear post are up till now rather appalling.

Psandro_gm goes on about discussing whether a certain language should be used. This is not the question. The question is about the C core interface to a scripting language. So what is the meaning of you doing this Psandro? Is it a decoy attempt?

And Thorsten jumps into the insult mode again. Typical for people who want to cover up their ignorance about a subject.

I can understand that someone can get very frustrated with such grossly besides the point answers. Actually i am interested in a proper answer too. It would be very disappointing if no one can answer the straightforward question about the exact C core interface to a scripting language. No answer would really reveal in what a quality mess the C core actually is. Instead of producing more wool, the participants in this topic would do a better job by calling in someone with real C core knowledge to answer the question properly.

Edit:
Before everyone jumps to all sorts of indirect slowing down interfaces like http, sockets and what have you not, that is also not the question. Think of it more as: How does nasal currently interface with the C core? What are the points in the C core where it touches nasal?

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Ouch, the first grave mistake i see moderator Johan make. He has plus-oned the insult of Thorsten. Pity, normally Johan is in the league of worthy moderators.

Kind regards, Vincent