Re: OT Python stuff (was RE: Python in Xconq)

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruno Boettcher wrote:

> > And a scripting language is seriously preferred, because it will permit
> > so much more stuff.
> yah :D

And that can also be a problem. Think about the possibilities for 
cheating. And we would have to be more cautious about security 
too.

> > If we add a scripting language, then I would submit that we write a
> > simple porting script to convert GDL to that language, and drop GDL.
> > IMHO, GDL is just a way to fill in data-structures, and any language can
> > do that.
> oh? that sounds like a nice idea?

Here are a few more points:
(1) Richard mentioned to me yesterday that each additional piece 
of external software that becomes an Xconq dependency is an 
additional annoyance. If you build tkconq then you need Tcl/Tk, 
and if you build sdlconq then you need SDL. Do we really want to 
say that we also need Perl (which is fairly ubiquitous on Linux, 
but not necessarily so on other platforms) or Python (which is 
admittedly a nice language, but still not as widespread as Perl, 
AFAICT)?
(2) Richard also raised the idea of using Tcl as an Xconq 
scripting engine. This partially eliminates the concern just 
raised; however with the SDL interface this would still be 
regarded as an additonal dependency.
(3) A full-blown scripting language can open many doors for 
cheating, as I mentioned above.
(4) GDL actually does usefully serve an important niche: game 
designers who are uncomfortable with a larger language. If we 
replace GDL, then we are raising the entry barrier for some of 
those who wish to design game modules for Xconq.

I am not against adding a scripting engine to Xconq based on 
external software, but I do urge caution and consideration....

Eric