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.
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.
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.
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.
Swift might be cool too, I've only used it a bit but I liked what I saw.
(yeah there are escape hatches, but it's weird to use them)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Why?
> And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.
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.
If I need to specify this is about data flow inside your application when we're talking about typing, I don't want think we're having the same conversation.
Hopefully someone else will want to mud wrestle on this.
C# support seems to have been added reluctantly, because the prospect of attracting unity devs was to good to pass on. But then they switch over and realize it is treated like the ugly stepchild and the hope is that you will just use their scripting language to avoid the friction.
And don't get me started on using GDExtension for other languages. Claiming C/C++ is available as a scripting languages in the same sentence as GDScript is a joke.
I'll look into Libgodot, maybe it's an option.
- deprecated web export for C# with Godot 4. This is basically my main gripe and why C# has been a non-starter for me.
- Engine still has a separate binary for C# support. I think they are working on unifying them. But once you use the .NET one you can't export to web even when you don't use C#.
- setting up debugging+lsp was a pain and consistency was very flaky afterwards
Also a lot of the editor workflow is built around using GDScript with the built-in text-editor. I don't actually mind it that much, but you asked why it's not as well integrated and that's an obvious one for newbies. If your experience was wildly different, please do tell.
Yes, exporting Godot + C# games to web is not possible right now and it seemingly takes the maintainers quite a lot of time to figure it out. It's apparently an official priority https://godotengine.org/priorities/#enable-users-to-export-t... but I wouldn't hold my breath for now.
Similarly for the new GDExtension based C# bindings https://github.com/raulsntos/godot-dotnet which have been cooking for quite a while now. Those would make it possible to only have a single Godot build and get rid of the .Net build. Tbf, the maintainers were teasing that godot-dotnet will soon™ be ready for early testing so who knows.
About setting up debugging+lsp, what were your struggles? Personally, I'm quite happy with JetBrains Rider Godot integration https://github.com/JetBrains/godot-support and JetBrains seems to be quite committed to supporting Godot https://godotengine.org/article/jetbrains-joins-dev-fund-sup... you even get support for Edit and Continue (EnC), which is what's easy to confuse with hot reload but EnC is actually the thing that makes it possible to change C# code while the game is running and the changes are reflected without losing the game state. Really handy. AFAIK you can't get this with open source C# tools like netcoredbg so I'd understand if you'd think that the Godot + C# DevEx is quite lacking if you use something like Neovim or Zed. I think VSCode has actually pretty good support but the really good tech behind the C# extension is proprietary and cannot be used by forks like Cursor or Windsurf.
But I totally agree, the GDScript integration is what Godot cares the most about and it shows in many places in the editor. So my experience is not wildly different in that sense. Just some different aspects I focus on maybe. But I'm always curious to see how people approach this stuff and what they feel about it.
I've been following the github issue for C# web export and let me tell you: It's not been a priority.
> EnC makes it possible to change C# code while the game is running and the changes are reflected without losing the game state.
sounds exactly like code hot reload to me? It would be very nice to have.
> About setting up debugging+lsp, what were your struggles?
> Godot + C# DevEx is quite lacking if you use something like Neovim or Zed
you got me. I tried integrating a Godot workflow using neovim and at some point with emacs. Both were subpar. This actually reminds of another pain point: gdshader. Also very integrated with the editor just like GDscript, which makes it another thing you have to work on getting integrated with your IDE of choice - or you bite the bullet and just use the editor for this. But shaders are such a massive shitshow that I can't really blame Godot for this.
I spent ages trying to get Emacs to work well with C# stuff, because I can't stand using IDEs that don't have some sort of emacs-style keybinding support, but eventually I bit the bullet and started using Rider and honestly it's been amazing and worked seamlessly with everything I've thrown at it (especially Godot). Highly recommended.
For starters. Read through this thread and be appalled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzt36EGKEZo https://github.com/migueldeicaza/SwiftGodot
(I've had some fun dabbling with Swift Godot but all of the documentation seems to be a bit out of date)
I also think there's probably a lot of skill issue involved as well. I've seen the code written by the average developer, it isn't pretty. Very few developers actually write half-decent code. The vast majority write code that I'd just delete and rewrite rather than work with. Slow, buggy, messy, sloppy.
And then they write a game and there's a bunch of problems because their code is ass and there's an angle where they can blame someone other than themselves so they do. And so the authors of Mono and Unity etc are held responsible, why can't they just fix their thing so that the bad developers can write bad code and still have a functioning game? And sure, if Swift can offer that then it seems Swift is the better choice for this application.
But there's plenty of good games made with C# so clearly it's also possible to do so.
C# has always felt a bit clunky to me. It’s nice to have alternatives.
The other huge problem is the terrible external editor support, it does not work well at all. This means your vim, jetbrains, whatever muscle memory from a lifetime of professional dev work becomes useless, and you have to use a gimped text editor worse than notepad++. You can use an external editor, but then lots of things don't work very well, scenes get randomly corrupted, hot reloading doesn't work, etc. It's many issues like this that prove Godot's only priority is attracting and entertaining people who have never written code before, instead of making an engine viable for shipping games.
I gave Godot a real chance for years, but at the end of the day it's a toy. There's a good reason that there are barely any games using it, and they're all extremely technically simple; surprisingly, that reason is not an unsophisticated underlying engine, but rather a million DX papercuts that a good ambitious developer would just never accept.
Do you have any sources for this? A while ago I had a small chat with the StS devs on the Chickensoft Discord server and they didn't mention this. Instead they were overall just very positive about their Godot + C# experience.
> The other huge problem is the terrible external editor support
Have your recently tried JetBrains Rider for Godot + C# development? Lately, they've been quite actively improving the Godot integration https://github.com/JetBrains/godot-support and also showing some significant commitment https://godotengine.org/article/jetbrains-joins-dev-fund-sup... and tbh I can't share your experiences since I'm using Rider. Even hot reload works really well without losing the running game state.
> There's a good reason that there are barely any games using it, and they're all extremely technically simple
Well, as of now when checking https://steamdb.info/tech/Engine/Godot/ there are 6,109 games made with Godot engine on Steam with 2,568 of them having been released in that last 12 months so there is a strong growth going on right now. But I agree that most of those look technically simpler.
> but rather a million DX papercuts that a good ambitious developer would just never accept
I think you're generalizing a bit too much here. You're implying that the StS devs or the devs of Road to Vostok are not ambitious?
I don't know man, there's more nuance to this. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that Godot + C# still has a bunch of shortcomings and there's still some catch up to do but overall it's imo already quite pleasant to use.
I'm not sure if there is any example of a studio or person making their second game in Godot when their first was not, and this rare occurrence seems to me a product of the "wow this shit is just not a serious engine compared to what I was using" effect.
Games are very complicated to make and take a very long time. Any unneeded friction will compound into games not getting shipped at all most of the time. Godot is uniquely frictional outside the basic happy path.
While 3D is still in heavy development it's actually easier to build simple 2D games in Godot. You can finish a simple game before the Unity installer is finished. Game engines aren't a fixed thing either. Assuming improvements continue Godot will get easier to use and gain market share.
https://unity.com/blog/games/games-made-with-unity-2025-rele...
I wont claim it works flawlessly, but you don't have to use GDScript or C# to program Godot.
You can also use C++, Go, Java, Typescript, Zig, Scala, Kotlin and Swift: https://github.com/Godot-Languages-Support/godot-lang-suppor...