[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Development Strategies [Was Documentation, Usability and Development]

[Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Remember that java can be compiled to native object code (on GNU/Linux, at
least, using gjc).  I don't know how its performance is that way.

If we look at that sort of massive changes, though, I think we should push
toward customizability.  It seems to me that units' special powers in
config files are a pretty ugly setup.  Basically, every special power
(paradrop, build fortresses...) is written in c, then specified to a unit
in config.  This makes it impossible for ruleset designers to add or edit
powers.

I'd like to see a design with the most core/time-critical code in C/C++
but the bulk of it in freeciv-definition language -- sort of like how
emacs and mathematica work.

Just my thoughts,

--Daniel Speyer
"May the /src be with you, always"


On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Andrew Sutton wrote:

> > So, is it worthy to switch to a new development model with the current
> > code, or is this for Freeciv 2.0.
> 
> let the old version stay as it is... there's no sense changing things 
> drastically now.
> 
> > Since everyone else has commented about what language to use, I will too.
> > <snip>
> 
> i'm REALLY not a fan of java for performance critical applications. it's fine 
> for clients and web apps, but i just don't think a virtual machine can 
> guarantee the performance of a native application. rewriting the server in 
> java would mean that all would be developers would have to learn java and its 
> subtelties in addition to the actual game.
> 
> i think c++ is probably the best choice above c. yes, c hackers will have to 
> learn c++, but since the syntax is similar, it shouldn't be too much of an 
> issue, and advanced developers can always answer questions about code. it 
> also builds to native binaries and can take full advantage of a) other c++ 
> toolkits b) the stl c) dynamically loaded libraries.
> 
> if there were a *very* good reason to rewrite the server in java, some other 
> vm language (c#), or an uncommon programming language (smalltack, ocamel, 
> ada, fortran, basic, etc), than it would we would have valid considerations. 
> besides... you can write c++ to be very, very portable - without too much 
> effort.
> 
> andy
> 
>