Timeline for Why do we use scripts in development?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2010 at 18:52 | comment | added | Mike Strobel | I didn't hear anyone suggest that designers should be writing complex, mission-critical scripts for production. However, designers with a modest understanding of programming could still tweak some scripts experimentally (and then hand them off actual programmers). They could certainly write simple ad hoc scripts from a console at runtime to facilitate their own testing. I imagine designers might want to leverage basic scripting in order to prototype new screen designs (even if they're nothing more than semi-functional, interactive mockups). Plenty of non-production code needs writing. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 20:47 | comment | added | user744 | Just to be clear, I am not against scripting languages. I strongly encourage scripting in game engines. I am against pretending that people who program are not programmers. Your job title might still be "designer", but there's a guy with that title who is actually a writer, and a guy with that title who is actually an architect - you're the guy with that title who is actually a programmer. And just like if you ask a writer to build a level, if you ask non-programmer designers to write a script, you're going to get crap. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 15:20 | comment | added | Kylotan | There has been much debate about this from both sides but I am on the side of having (some) designers write scripts. Raph Koster summarises this well (raphkoster.com/2007/11/02/using-scripting-languages) by saying that design is not just about content but about systems, and thus designers need good tools to edit systems. A high level scripting language is one such tool. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 23:38 | comment | added | dash-tom-bang | BTW- I believe that the power in scripting languages, be it Lua or Python or whatever, is that the programmers can use it and be many times more productive, simply due to getting out of the change, compile, execute loop. ...although I guess depending on your implementation you may require that for scripts too, which then makes them less valuable. :) However- having a "scripting" console in-game is an amazing tool. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 23:36 | comment | added | dash-tom-bang | At my place of employ, the designers' "scripting" sandbox is visual. Essentially they're hooking black boxes together with triggers and timers. The UI isn't great, and the designers sometimes wish they could just type it all out, but doing it visually allows the tools to tightly constrain what they can do and to make it "impossible" to make mistakes. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 19:32 | comment | added | Nef | I'm pretty sure that any self respecting designer is well taught in at least one language. To clarify things a bit, I would like to nuance the term "non-programmer" as somebody who's profession is not that of a software engineer. I regret using the term, thanks to Joe I see it's ambiguous. I believe there is a broad range of programmers, from those who write simple XML to hardcore assembly to math heavy signal processing. I hope this solves the "non-programmer" duality issue. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 18:16 | comment | added | user744 | It does invalidate the argument; you're making a different argument, which is essentially that worse programmers do less damage in simpler languages. But even good programmers are worse programmers after 24 hours awake, a heavy lunch, a breakup, etc. It has nothing to do with designer accessibility; it's just a good mantra to keep everything as simple as possible, regardless of who will be in charge of it. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 17:06 | comment | added | Ian Schreiber | Joe - that doesn't invalidate the argument, it just means that you have to decide where to decouple the "programming stuff" from the "design stuff" and the dividing line will be different based on the technical expertise of your designers (or lack thereof). | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 14:46 | comment | added | user744 | To put it another way - if your professional value as a programmer is being able to write good C++ when everyone else can only write good Lua, you're not going to last long. Being a programmer means knowing so much more than just another stupid imperative syntax. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 14:39 | comment | added | user744 | I feel like I'm repeating myself in every question about scripting - if your workflow requires non-programmers to program (which includes scripting), it is going to bite you in the ass later. Designers aren't always programmers, but as soon as they write non-trivial scripts (e.g. as soon as they try to define a function or use a loop) they're pretending to be one. If they don't have training in programming, that's going to end in tears and wasted time for everyone. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 14:11 | comment | added | Oak | +1 for saying that scripts are usually easier to update by non-programmers. Designers aren't always programmers, and they don't have to be. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 13:16 | history | answered | Nef | CC BY-SA 2.5 |