[314]

Nice idea, as python is much easier to write code for than lua so should fit game scripting well.

But, the examples are not the kinds of things that I would care about before trying to put this into a game engine. It needs a different set of examples.

* How hard is it to call into a C function from a hook in the py code?

* How hard is it to wrap / unwrap values from their py representation to C?

If you want people to embed the interpreter into an engine then show that it is clean/easy to do the embedding, rather than showing that the interpreter can execute code. I would assume that it executes python, but need to know how well it embeds.

[benob]

Here is what I came up with for calling a c function after poking around a little bit:

  #include "pocketpy.h" 
    
  // builtin function that can be called
  PyVar test(VM* vm, const pkpy::Args& args) {
    printf("called!\n");
    return vm->PyStr("hi there");
  }   

  int main(){
    // Create a virtual machine 
    VM* vm = pkpy_new_vm(true);
    vm->bind_builtin_func<1>("test", test);
    
    // Hello world!
    pkpy_vm_exec(vm, "print(test('Hello world!'))");
    
    // Free the resources
    pkpy_delete(vm);
    return 0;
  }

[diego_moita]

> as python is much easier to write code for than Lua

No, it isn't. And it isn't harder, too. They're just different.

[trinovantes]

It was pretty hard for me to get used to Lua's 1-based index and everything treated as a table

I think it's easier to mentally map concepts between C and Python than Lua

[sk0g]

Lua scripting can be more commonly performed by people without an engineering background, depending on the workplace. Game designers and level artists probably don't have much C experience, so Python's relative proximity to C is a non-factor.

[traverseda]

Is assembly harder to write than lua? How about lisp? I mean you must have some kind of rough ranking of language difficulty in your head. Sure, some of it will be cultural, in a world where middle schoolers are taught s expressions and reverse polish notation lisp might be a lot easier. There certainly is some subjectivity involved.

Still, I think it's reasonable to say that python is easier to write code for.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

Scripting use is by definition a less demanding type of requirement than being able to write entire apps.

I wrote a fairly complete "C" subset as a scripting language for a programmable regression test tool (self-contained test-cases able to evaluate the test-case responses). To make it more friendly I made it dynamically typed (so no need to declare variables) and also added XMLPath syntax support as a type of built-in l-value since the requests/responses it was dealing with were XML/JSON, and this meant you could access any elements of the test request/response(s) as if they were just variables.

Anyhow, "C" may not be what comes to mind for a scripting language, but targeting a group of developers who knew C/C++, and with these minor language tweaks made it very simple to use. My point is that for this type of application I'm not sure that the choice of language makes a huge difference - choose something your target audience is comfortable with, and extend in DSL fashion to make it tightly integrated.

[314]

In my experience I've found it easier to write Python code. The set of basic types is a little larger, and the core builtins cover more of what I need to do. Lua is a bit more fiddly and verbose, which leads to a more difficult development process (in my opinion). Why would you argue that they have the same level of difficulty?