[cardanome]

> I'm not going to waste my time with GDScript.

The GDScript hate is so odd.

If you know any scripting language you know GDScript. How much time are you wasting when it takes one afternoon to learn? And nowadays it even has gradual typing support for those that are scared of dynamic types.

I have seen C# devs coming to Godot being super prejudiced against GDScript and then end up using GDScript anyway because it is just more pleasant to use.

[TulliusCicero]

Still doesn't have full static typing support to my knowledge, which is a dealbreaker to me.

The other things are that it just has less support for structuring your code in different ways, and of course the performance is vastly worse. My game does some state space exploration for the enemy AI, so having code that runs an order of magnitude slower just doesn't work for me.

[cardanome]

It has support for typing Arrays and Dictionaries these days. Yes, nested Arrays are still a problem but I am sure they will get to it.

As for performance well the GDExtension support has also gotten much better. You can always go down to C++, Rust, Nim, Zig or whatever. It is really easy to set up.

[TulliusCicero]

But then I have to code in those other languages, languages that require manual memory management that I'm not as familiar with. C# is many times faster than gdscript, and I don't have to think about memory hardly at all. And it's easy enough to code the whole game in it.

[cardanome]

You can use C#. It is well supported except for the (currently) missing web target and Microsoft is funding C# support so it will not get abandoned.

You can also use other garbage collected languages. I once tried the Lua bindings and they worked fine.

The problem with C# is that its garbadge collection is not really suited for game dev. The creator of the Mono runtime actually calls using C# his Multi-million dollar mistake and instead works on swift bindings for Godot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzt36EGKEZo

But if you really love C# nothing is stopping you. I prefer GDScript.

[TulliusCicero]

I know, I already use C# for Godot. My original comment was just to explain why I don't use gdscript.

Swift might be cool too, I've only used it a bit but I liked what I saw.

[mh2266]

rust and swift don't require manual memory management. rust is RAII and swift is either value types or reference-counted.

(yeah there are escape hatches, but it's weird to use them)

[eudamoniac]

This line of reasoning is silly, because no one in their right mind would choose to use gdscript for any program that was not in Godot. You can't even type a nested array, among many other issues. That is because gdscript is a bad language objectively. It being part of Godot doesn't change that. Why would I choose to write my game, the thing that is very hard and will take years, in an objectively bad language? I would not choose that, because that doesn't make any sense to do. Writing code is like 90% of the work if I hire artists. I am not going to do 90% of years of work in a shitty language, because I don't have to do that, being a skilled developer in real languages.

So when people come out and defend gdscript for being not that bad, it's like, okay, but it's still really shitty compared to any normal language like C# or even Python. It is made by a game engine, used by thousands of people, instead of being made by gorillions of dollars poured into it by tech companies and used by millions of people. I'm just going to use good languages instead.

[cardanome]

The Godot devs tried bindings to other languages first and it sucked: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/about/faq.html#what-w...

GDScript might be a bad general purpose language but it is a good language for Godot.

You say Python is a "normal" language for me while I love Python, modern Python has gotten way too complicated and clunky with lots of new features added. For me GDScript feels much closer to the original pythonic ideal. Plus it is much easier to learn for people that are not professional programmers.

Maybe you don't enjoy using GDScript and that is fine but saying it is a "objectively bad" language is really uncalled for. For many devs it is the right fit.

[danbolt]

If you’re being objective about a programming language, its strengths and weaknesses are always going to a reflection of the game you’re trying to make. Python’s ecosystem will get you very far making web services, but less so with cert on consoles.

C# and GDScript are no different. They both have made design decisions for particular reasons.

You’re a skilled developer in real languages, so I’d encourage you to explore why other developers might prefer a DSL for their needs!

[krapp]

I don't hate it, but I don't like it either.

Mostly because I don't like the Python-style use of significant whitespace. But functions aren't first class citizens, making closures and lambdas awkward, type hinting isn't supported everywhere (such as with callables). I could probably come up with more petty gripes if I opened up a project and played with it. "pass" is an abomination to God.

It's a lot better than it used to be and it gets the job done but I still find it ugly and awkward as a language.

A more general complaint I have is that Godot tries to load every script regardless of whether it's actually included in the game hierarchy.

[eatsyourtacos]

>for those that are scared of dynamic types.

If you aren't scared of dynamic types for any type of semi-large project (like a game..) then you aren't qualified to talk about much.

[foxygen]

Why?

[BoorishBears]

Without agreeing (or disagreeing) with their larger point, dynamic types become more of liability as a project gets larger

Like "schemaless" database applications, there's always types/schema somewhere: the choice is if they'll be explicitly defined at the place of construction, or implicitly spread out across all the places data happens to flow in your application. And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.

Static typing is also really nice for game dev since proper unit tests are harder (but not impossible) compared to your average CRUD app.

[cardanome]

The other side of the argument is that dynamic typing is great for prototyping and can allow for more compact code.

The discussion is exhausting because many people don't understand the difference between weak typing and dynamic typing. You basically never want weak typing but dynamic typing has legit uses. Yes JS is both weakly and dynamically typed and that sucks but Common Lisp shows you can have very strong typing and dynamic types.

Lots of very complex software has been writing in dynamically typed languages. The whole Erlang/Elixir world is dynamically typed though Elixir is getting gradual typing.

There is a good reason gradual typing is getting popular, you get the best of both world. You can prototype quickly and then add types and make everything more solid later.

(Which also why you want to always use a statically typed language in the corporate world because there is never a "later" and the bigger the team the more important it is to have the lang enforcing discipline. But not every programming is corporate.)

People that are dogmatic about static typing show their immaturity. The older I get the more I realize that there is no right or wrong way to program, everything it tradeoffs and "it depends".

[BoorishBears]

Exactly which part of my comment seems dogmatic?

You literally start your comment by reaffirming my point (prototyping, like when you tend to have a smaller code base?)

Feels like you replied to a comment you imagined based on past interactions, not anything I actually wrote.

[cardanome]

> Exactly which part of my comment seems dogmatic

I never said that any part of your comment is dogmatic. This is not private conversation where I am talking to you directly.

I wrote

> People that are dogmatic about static typing show their immaturity

Referring to the people like eatsyourtacos who started this discussion.

[foxygen]

> dynamic types become more of liability as a project gets larger

Why?

[BoorishBears]

> there's always types/schema somewhere: the choice is if they'll be explicitly defined at the place of construction, or implicitly spread out across all the places data happens to flow in your application.

> And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.

[foxygen]

You can still have schema validation at the borders of the application(data in/out) without static typing.

I think there are many other factors that come into play when it comes to maintaniblity of large projects. I'd easily choose to maintain a large Elixir or Common Lisp codebase over a Java one, assuming they were all using the Best Practices™ of their respective languages.

There is research out there, and there is absolutely zero evidence that static typing catches more bugs than dynamic types. My experience is that immutability, functional programming, simplicity and testing pays a MUCH bigger role in maintainability than static typing.

Dynamic typing has trade-offs, and so does static typing, HUGE trade-offs by the way. But for some reason, no one seems to mention them... ever.