Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Some alternative modules #4217

Closed
alabd14313 opened this issue Apr 3, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

Some alternative modules #4217

alabd14313 opened this issue Apr 3, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

@alabd14313
Copy link

Hi!
I have two questions:
1- Why godot don't use Box2D, Liquid Fun, Chipmunk2D, bullet, and have his own physics engine?
2- Why godot don't use Angelscript. Is there an important feature in Gdscript that angelscript lacks. (Angel script c++ binding looks easier)
I need a good and clear reason to leave box2d and angelscript modules implementation for godot.

@alabd14313 alabd14313 changed the title Some alternate modules Some alternative modules Apr 3, 2016
@neikeq
Copy link
Contributor

neikeq commented Apr 3, 2016

You can always make such modules yourself. I once considered doing an AngelScript module as an alternative to dynamic typing, but there is not much demand for it (most of the people who complain about GDScript seem to prefer C#...).

@alabd14313
Copy link
Author

I haven't good memories about Microsoft technologies.
I said some times ago
C# is a good language but there are better languages than it. Also C# differ from C# script.
There are more issues:
#2790

@ret80
Copy link

ret80 commented Apr 3, 2016

How many programmers have many opinions about what a programming language is best used in Godot. Will not please everyone. Of course it would be better if it was in Godot python rather than what we have now. But just because historically let it yet remains. In the engine there are many other important things that sledovolo be improved.

@ret80
Copy link

ret80 commented Apr 3, 2016

By the way, C # was not the best solution, until recently. Since there were difficulties with the creation of games for mobile platforms (surcharge Xamarin). But now Xamarin became free, and C # is a good alternative in the future.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 16, 2016

I know the answer for question 2, but what's the answer for question 1? @reduz, anyone?

(not that I have any issues with Godot's physics)

@ret80
Copy link

ret80 commented Jun 16, 2016

@paper-pauper The answer to question 1 is the same as to question 2.
I'm more interested in whether @alabd14313 was able to implement a third-party modules or abandoned this idea?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 16, 2016

@ret80 the answer can't be the same, since scripting languages come with their own VMs and memory management which physics engines don't.

@akien-mga
Copy link
Member

Closing as the discussion is stale, and issues written as a suggestion to replace big parts of the engine with arbitrary libraries are usually bound to be ignored/closed, as per the FAQ: http://docs.godotengine.org/en/latest/about/faq.html

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants