Yes, you're wrong to try to do game development in Perl. Why? Because nobody else does it, that's why! Programming these days takes more than a lone avenger with a compiler. It takes a community of active developers and users. And since there's no active Perl game programming community, Perl isn't much of an option.
I'm not sure if that is flamebait or if you are attempting to goad me into the creating the world's best game library. Either way, you're clearly wrong about Perl not being up to the task. The only reason Python is anywhere is because the PyGame folks put in the time. Perl is a much better language for glueing things together, has a ton of modules in existance, and is better suited for AI. It's a natural fit.
Did I say I couldn't deal with C? No. Not at all. I own C. It's just a chore to do anything beyond simple constructs. You have to watch yourself closer in graph theory, for instance. You can't make use of OO. (Ok, there is C++, but we shall not mention that abomination). Perl is just more "fun", and that is what matters. It lends itself towards cleaner, shorter, code that can do more in less time. We all know this.
Should I (or anyone else) start a full-fledged library, Perl will take off just the same. SDL is a great start. Frozen-Bubble (YES! It's in Perl! You non-believers!) shows it's possible, it's just a little ugly inside. The primitives aren't there, and it's a chore to use. Something like a SDL::Simple and an SDL::PixelTools (line drawing, etc) on top of SDL would go a long way. Something that would allow something like frozen-bubble to read more elegantly.
I don't know why you posted a Quake3 link. I'm not speaking that magnitude. The guy working on Bloodgate certainly is, though. Maybe he'll make it.
Anyhow, thanks for that comment. It will serve as impotus for having to prove you wrong.
| [reply] |
The only reason Python is anywhere is because the PyGame folks but in the time.
I think we, uh, agree? This is exactly my point. Technology is not the question. Community is the question. The PyGames folks are putting out games because they work as a community tp produce high quality Python game libraries. There is no "PerlGames" community, therefore you shouldn't use Perl to program games.
Of course this could change, and maybe you can help change it. But you can't do it alone, and right now my guess is you are pretty much alone in wanting to program 2D games with Perl.
Should I (or anyone else) start a full-fledged library, Perl will take off just the same.
I doubt it. You need more than a library, you need users to use it and help you improve it.
Anyhow, good luck. I'll be the first to congratulate you if you succeed. Just don't be too shocked if I'm the only one! My own foray into the world of Perl game SDK development was less than encouraging...
-sam
| [reply] |
the PyGames folks are putting out games because they work as a community tp produce high quality Python game libraries. There is no "PerlGames" community, therefore you shouldn't use Perl to program games.
This is self-defeating. There was not a PyGames community at one point either. This is also like saying "I should not write games in Lisp" or "I should not write a newsreader for EMACS". These things get done. Why? Because a true hacker does whatever the hell he wants -- and he is very bad at listening to those who say "can't".
Perhaps you tried to take too much of an evolutionary leap with your Quake3 project. There are tremendous efficiency issues here that would take a long time to conquer. However I know a bunch of folks are scripting Unreal engines with Lisp, using hand-rolled XML parsers. And it works. Who's to say Perl can't leverage a few native libraries and kick ass? It can. It just requires the nay-sayers to quit saying nay and finally do something.
Because a community or user base does not exist is not a reason to avoid development. That's only going to lead you to failure every time, in every thing that you do.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
