From: Torsten D. <to...@t3...> - 2016-01-25 16:33:57
|
> I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to make sure this is argued > fairly. > My apologies if my arguments were unfair, it was not my intention to drag this discussion into an unwanted direction or offend anybody. > "Potentially harmful" applies to a lot of things that already exist in > FlightGear. We have a host of odd ball and rare threading / property > system related bugs, along with deconstructor ordering bugs, memory > allocation bugs. We allow graphical effects to use the property system > (i.e. thread-unsafe property system access has caused real problems.) > Right now we enjoy a state of things mostly working most of the time. But > we allow things that I personally would consider far more unsafe (and not > in a theoretical sense, but in a practical demonstrable sense) than > python. I'm sure I'll get quoted next time I object to something, but I > just want to make sure the discussion proceed fairly. > Yes, true. Unfortunately. Let's learn from those things that did not turn out as well as we had expected. To clarify, I don't object against the python integration. I am not in a position to do so. I'd just recommend to not do it but to focus on detangling the subsystems and creating a distributes simulation instead. That's my vision. Torsten |