mpinteractiv

> As for my personal experience with GDScript, I used to experiment with Godot a while back, and honestly I never felt like GDScript was some sort of hindrance never felt it was in the way. It was really, really easy to pick up if you know another programming language already.

Nobody is saying that it's wrong or an "hindrance", it's just yet another language to learn for a single purpose,yet another ecosystem to write libraries for. But the main issue is that it's either that or C++ (nothing against C++ either, it's just that it cannot be put into random hands). Choice is good. But there is Processing,Haxe,Vala,... + all other general purpose languages and co in this space already. It's not like they couldn't pick something that already existed.

> One thing I don't get with game engines: why do they feel the need to make a X-like scripting language, where X=Python in this case, and X=JavaScript in Unity's case?

So I checked the doc

> GDScript is a dynamically typed scripting language to fit inside Godot. It was designed with the following goals: (...)

So yeah, it's close to python but with a different syntax. Why ? it's a big fustrating.

Granted Python wasn't necessary developed with game design in mind(though there is absolutely no issue with developing games in Python). I feel there is a lost opportunity here.

> As with most dynamically typed languages though, the higher productivity (code is easier to learn, faster to write, no compilation, etc) is balanced with a performance penalty, but most critical code is written in C++ already in the engine (vector ops, physics, math, indexing, etc), making the resulting performance more than enough for most types of games.

Then why not go with a statically typed language at first place? I began programming with Flash and never had an issue with learning AS from scratch, granted AS2 was less difficult than AS3 for beginners.

Anyway, first time I hear about this project and it looks quite gorgeous.

I use it, I like it. It is simple, not riddled with ads/useless functionalities whatever, I does 1 thing and does it well. How are they going to monetize it ? I'm not sure though.

idem! Definitely a refreshing look.

Unfortunatly LLVM/CLang is a second citizen on Windows. It's tough to use anything that depends on it.

So it's not an email client, it's some app exclusively for Gmail and Google Inbox (using OAUTH for authorization ), not that it lessen the value of the app in anyways but it's important to note.

I love your product, thanks for releasing a "community server". I liked it because it contained enough business logic to get started with most projects. Built that with it among other things :

https://github.com/Mparaiso/playground ( a jsfiddle lite directly available on github , the UI is angularjs : https://mparaiso.github.io/playground )

So thanks. You were the best BaaS feature wise IMHO.

EDIT: however just one point : you took 1 year to rewrite your API in Go, which yielded performances but the product didn't evolve that much in the meantime because of the rewrite, was the experience positive or negative?