Related
I want to bind a different programming language to the Godot game engine. Is there an instructional document or video on this topic? For example, how was this project done: godot-rust. If I can learn the basics, I can succeed in working in a different language. Thanks.
In this answer I show you the different approaches to add language support in Godot 3.x (the situation will be somewhat different with Godot 4.0 and GDExtension - which replaces GDNative and hopefully means less custom builds), and I mention some languages that are supported by each of these approaches. However, this is not an exhaustive list of the languages.
First of all, Godot has official build-in support for GDScript and Godot's VisualScript (and Godot's shading language and its visual counterpart if those counts for you).
There are a few ways to use C++:
You can use it to create GDNative scripts (which are basically a wrapper around native calls that allow you to use them as scripts in Godot).
Or you can create modules (which are static libraries you can add in a custom Godot build).
And since Godot source is in C++, you don't have to restrict yourself to making modules if you are making custom builds.
In web builds Godot can interface with JavaScript via the JavaScript class. However, this approach does not allow you to add JavaScript scripts to Nodes, and so on.
Then there are languages that can only be added in custom builds of Godot, which is currently the official support for C#.
There are other non-official custom builds that offer language binding for languages such as Lua, Kotlin, TypeScript and JavaScript (this time allowing you to make scripts).
If you need to add a runtime, you would probably do this.
Some language take advantage of the fact that Godot's has official Mono support in order to support C#. This way you can, for example, use F# and Clojure.
They start by adding a C# project and then modify it so it uses another language. This is viable if your language already compiles to .NET.
Some other languages can be added as plugins that implement the PluginScript class via GDNative. This is the case of Python and Lua (again) which you can get from the asset library.
This is the most user friendly way to add language support to Godot, but it is limited to what you can do with PluginScript.
Addendum: Gil Barbosa Reis, author of the aforementioned Lua bindings, has an article series about its implementation stuffed away in the repository (in English and Portugueses): godot-lua-pluginscript/extras/articles/. It is probably the most comprehensive tutorial to date.
Other languages are added by means of taking advantage of GDNative (They basically mimic what you would do with C++). This is the case of Nim, Rust, D, Haskell, Go, Swift…
So that's how godot-rust works: make native libraries using rust and the godot-rust create and add them as if they were made in C++. For any language for which there are the means to make native libraries already, this is a good option.
Finally there is another way to add support for a language: a transpiler from that language to GDScript, which can be automated with an addon that might also be written in GDScript. This is the case of Lisp.
This last approach is mostly used for domain specific languages.
The official docs here provide your answer:
Godot officially supports GDScript, C/C++, C#.
Some 3rd party languages that can be used are: Rust, D, Python, Nim, and Go.
Background: I want to develop a component therefore building a class library.
This component should be usable with many higher-order languages such as C, C#, C++, VB, Java, Haskell, Ruby, Erlang, ...
I do not want to exclude any users which are not using my development language.
Are there principles or tools which supports my project?
I searched a little bit and found Haxle for compiling into different languages, but it supports very few of them.
I would even develop parallel in all n languages to be supported, but if I want to change or fix something I have to maintain all other n-1 and the code is possibly distributed...
This is not what I know about clean code design and maintainability. So how to manage edits on code for the different languages?
What is the proper way to solve this? I am surely not the first one which want to build a library for multiple languages.
I want to develop this library (in this case for complexity reduction) in one target language but this time for multiple platforms (Unix, Win, Mac ...).
How to manage this? In fact there will be appreciated about 90% of code which is platform independent and 10% which differs for every OS.
What is the best way to control the changes in the platform dependent code? (The independent is easy ...)
What if I change so things in the part which uses Unix dependent code, then I have to trail all other platform and the code is possibly distributed.
I think #IFDEF is no option ...
Are there any experiences or hints?
I would be delighted if there are existing solutions to these problems, which are quite similar.
What you want is only possible if you provide interfaces for every language you want to support. Some kind of wrapper which transforms between the client language and ypu library.
This is possible but not practical in most cases for standalone libraries.
Take a look at webservices or or message orientad middleware. In this case your application will be provided within a special container which itself provides interface mechanism e.g.
SOAP, XML-RPC to call your application.
For 1), I would use an interface that all these languages can use. A common approach is something based on networking/TCP, like protobuffer, REST, SOAP. Many languages support these in their standard libraries, and interfaces designed with that are normally language agnostic.
There are basically two options - you could develop a network server or you could develop a JVM-based library which could be shared between some of the JVM languages like JRuby or Jython.
Update from #millimoose: you could also develop your library in C and create bindings for all other languages.
For multi-language:
I thought about TCP/middleware/webservices/REST/ which seems to be the recommended proceeding.
But I think it's all to much at runtime for only using a library.
Also the functionality is a little bit time-critical and so direct procedure calls are more fitting (instead of networking even on localhost). And the library user hasn't to construct an access component only to use the library functions.
So I think the way to go seems to be developing the library in a core language which is widely supported (C/C++, ...) and provide wrapper interfaces for the different target languages.
For multi-platform (mono-language):
No real answer has been provided also not in my mind.
Of course I could simply use Java (what I am familiar with) but what about other languages?
I am surely not the first one having this/these problem(s) ...
There are lots of oop languages, but I couldn't find any that has conveniences like garbage collection, but compiles natively to machine code. Sort of like between C and java/c#. One interesting language I found was Vala, but that's limited to the GNOME platform and is not that well-known
Go is probably closest.
But why on earth do you want it natively compiled anyway?
JIT compilation of portable bytecode has proved to be an extremely effective strategy. It compiles down to native code at runtime (so you get up to the performance of native code after the first few iterations) and it avoids the issues of having to build and manage platform-specific compiled binaries.
Are you thinking about C++? That is in high usage and can be compiled on nearly any (major) platform.
In the case you want to use an oo language that compiles down to native code you will "always" have to use header files and stuff as the elf format doesn't support oo (There is no class information in elf).In case you want to use classes from external libs you need to make the compiler aware somehow about the fact that there are classes, functions, etc. that are declared outside of your project. In C++ this is solved by the use of header files. So that's, I think, a major drawback in native object oriented languages. To resolve that issue a few tweaks would need to be made to elf/loader/linker in order to support the kind of features (like "linking" against "classes") you might expect. Even though mechanism for garbage collection could be implemented even in native languages. But that seems no good for os implementation.
There are C++ libs to do that for userspace apps like:
Boehm collector
Smart pointers
Assuming you can get a dynamic interpreter; can statically compiled languages replace scripting language? I never quite understood why anyone would use a scripting language? I am talking about on PC, not a limited system which needs a simplistic interpreter. I seen some python install scripts and seen similar python and C# solutions to a problem. So why use a scripting language?
NOTE: There are things that bother me about C#, i am not asking why not use C# instead. I am asking why use a scripting language? I find static compiled languages much easier to debug and often easier to code in.
There is very little distinction these days between compiling and interpreting. Look at how an interpreted language is executed - the first step is to convert the script into some kind of internal executable form, like byte code that can be executed by a simpler instruction set. This is essentially compilation to a virtual machine format. This is exactly what modern compiled languages do. And when compiled languages are deployed in server-side web apps, they even recompile from the source on the fly. So there's practically no difference in terms of the compile/execute technique.
The only difference is in the details of the instruction set, specifically in the type system. Scripting languages are usually (but not always) dynamically typed. But many large applications are also written in dynamically typed languages too. So again, there is no clear distinction here.
Personally I think static typing, far from being "extra unnecessary effort" (as it is often described) is actually a huge productivity booster, making it much easier to write short snippets correctly on the first attempt, thanks to intellisense/autocompletion. To underline this, look at how Microsoft has improved the jQuery library simply by adding static type information to it (in specially formatted comments) so we can have intellisense in the IDE.
And meanwhile, static languages (including C# and Java) are bringing in more dynamic typing features.
So I see these categories as eventually merging and the distinction being meaningless.
Wikipedia says that a Scripting Language is a language that controls other software. You can do that with C#, but true scripting languages like Powershell are designed specifically for this.
I tend to think of a scripting language in more "interactive" terms than C#. With a scripting language, you can write a line or two of code, execute it and see the results immediately. That's not so easy in C#, where you have to put your code in a Console Application, or fire it off from a unit test, or type it into the Immediate window where you don't have intellisense.
That rapid cycle of write, execute allows rapid prototyping of complete "scripts" in a scripting language, because it gives you immediate feedback on each line of code.
This kind of question often starts flame wars as people are passionate about their respective camps.
In the computer olden days, Unix command line tools and console shells provided a rich scripting environment where all sorts of processing could be done. You didn't need to be an expert programmer in any specific language and could string (pun intended) various programs (other people wrote) together using the pipe structure to massage your data which was mostly text not binary related. It is quick and easy to make changes to your batch command file. You don't have a source file that has to be edited, compiled linked with external static or shared libries/DLLS in the case of Windows.
One thing scripting does not have normally have is speed. You don't write device drives and live internet trading AI systems in scripting. But if you run a script once a day on some data received via e-mail or ftp you don't normally care how long it takes as it can run it background anyway.
Rewind back to the present and the waters become muddy. Some scripting enviroments offer a kind of speed up facility where they will read you script and almost compile and link in modules the same a normal C++ or VB program might use for speed puposes. But this very iffy and can't be relied on.
So how do you choose which route to go. Start doing tasks using scripting. If it runs too slow or you are having to do stuff every 5 minutes then parts of your script might benifit from a section written in a traditional language or the whole thing could be written in a language.
Like anything dabble and learn
Each is used for different purposes. Programs written in scripting languages are often not self-contained; they often function as "glue code" or (as Robert Harvey mentions) to automate a task. You often find scripting language interpreters embedded within an application (cf Python in Blender; Guile, Perl and Python in GIMP; JS in umpteen different browsers; Lua in countless games). Compiled languages, on the other hand, are used to produce self-contained applications. Scripts are mostly cross-platform; compiled applications usually aren't.
Note that a scripting language doesn't necessarily use an interactive interpreter (e.g. Perl), and an interpreted language isn't necessarily use for scripts (e.g. games made using PyGame). Note also that there's nothing about the languages themselves that make them interpreted or compiled. You could have a C# interpreter or a Ruby compiler. There have been a number of Lisp systems that offered both interpreters and compilers.
I would call my shell (bash) a scripting language, and I don't see a replacement comming, which is compiled.
I like to use scala, which is a statically typed language which comes with an interpreter-like REPL-interface, and due to type interference looks pretty much like a scripting language; have a look here: http://www.simplyscala.com/ .
But it isn't meant to be the glue between other programs as the shell is, so for small jobs, which are easily verified by hand and eye, which are just a few lines of code, I prefer to use the shell. And jumping from directory to directory is comfortable in a shell, where the prompt shows where I am.
Before we begin, I don't think that I've ever met a static language user who "got" scripting language without trying them, including myself. It is a different experience.
So no. Basically, you can add features to static languages which makes them superficially seem like scripting languages (like simple type inference), but its not the same:
Many scripting language users hate static languages. They feel constrained. Scripting languages are typically very good at not getting in the users way, which is sacrificed in static languages for speed/correctness.
Duck typing will not appear in static languages.
Scripting language users don't like type annotations. Its not really possible to provide a type-inference system for scripting languages, and the simple type inference appearing in some languages now only works for static types.
Techniques like monkey patching (which to my mind is a very bad idea) is pervasive in Ruby, and allows for very powerful techniques, which won't become available soon in static languages either.
Which isn't to say that a yet-to-be-designed language can't handle scripting language features in a relatively static way, but it would be difficult for it to become popular relative to the entrenched Python/PHP/Perl/Ruby/Javascript set. Factor is the closest thing, AFAICT.
What will happen is that scripting language implementations will get faster by using JITs.
Can a screw driver replace a hammer ? No, because you just don't use them for the same purpose. And if both exist, and if such a lot of people use either one or the other, there must be a reason...
Same anwser for :
class inheritance vs prototype;
imperative vs oo;
static vs dynamic typing;
strongly vs weakly typed;
manual memory management vs GC;
C# vs Java;
blue vs red;
man vs woman;
batman vs superman (but I do think superman would win... wait, there is kryptonite... oh man, I don't know...)
etc...
Because it is shorter to write since it is a higher level language, and it doesn't need the compilation cycle which also makes thing shorter.
I am asking why use a scripting
language? I find static compiled
languages much easier to debug and
often easier to code in.
Because I find loosely-typed dynamic languages without an explicit compile-run cycle much easier to debug and generally easier to code in.
I see here that there are a load of languages aside from Java that run on the JVM. I'm a bit confused about the whole concept of other languages running in the JVM. So:
What is the advantage in having other languages for the JVM?
What is required (in high level terms) to write a language/compiler for the JVM?
How do you write/compile/run code in a language (other than Java) in the JVM?
EDIT: There were 3 follow up questions (originally comments) that were answered in the accepted answer. They are reprinted here for legibility:
How would an app written in, say, JPython, interact with a Java app?
Also, Can that JPython application use any of the JDK functions/objects??
What if it was Jaskell code, would the fact that it is a functional language not make it incompatible with the JDK?
To address your three questions separately:
What is the advantage in having other languages for the JVM?
There are two factors here. (1) Why have a language other than Java for the JVM, and (2) why have another language run on the JVM, instead of a different runtime?
Other languages can satisfy other needs. For example, Java has no built-in support for closures, a feature that is often very useful.
A language that runs on the JVM is bytecode compatible with any other language that runs on the JVM, meaning that code written in one language can interact with a library written in another language.
What is required (in high level terms) to write a language/compiler for the JVM?
The JVM reads bytecode (.class) files to obtain the instructions it needs to perform. Thus any language that is to be run on the JVM needs to be compiled to bytecode adhering to the Sun specification. This process is similar to compiling to native code, except that instead of compiling to instructions understood by the CPU, the code is compiled to instructions that are interpreted by the JVM.
How do you write/compile/run code in a language (other than Java) in the JVM?
Very much in the same way you write/compile/run code in Java. To get your feet wet, I'd recommend looking at Scala, which runs flawlessly on the JVM.
Answering your follow up questions:
How would an app written in, say, JPython, interact with a Java app?
This depends on the implementation's choice of bridging the language gap. In your example, Jython project has a straightforward means of doing this (see here):
from java.net import URL
u = URL('http://jython.org')
Also, can that JPython application use any of the JDK functions/objects?
Yes, see above.
What if it was Jaskell code, would the fact that it is a functional language not make it incompatible with the JDK?
No. Scala (link above) for example implements functional features while maintaining compatibility with Java. For example:
object Timer {
def oncePerSecond(callback: () => unit) {
while (true) { callback(); Thread sleep 1000 }
}
def timeFlies() {
println("time flies like an arrow...")
}
def main(args: Array[String]) {
oncePerSecond(timeFlies)
}
}
You need other languages on the JVM for the same reason you need multiple programming languages in general: Different languages are better as solving different problems ... static typing vs. dynamic typing, strict vs. lazy ... Declarative, Imperative, Object Oriented ... etc.
In general, writing a "compiler" for another language to run on the JVM (or on the .Net CLR) is essentially a matter of compiling that language into java bytecode (or in the case of .Net, IL) instead of to assembly/machine language.
That said, a lot of the extra languages that are being written for JVM aren't compiled, but rather interpreted scripting languages...
Turning this on its head, consider you want to design a new language and you want it to run in a managed runtime with a JIT and GC. Then consider that you could:
(a) write you own managed runtime (VM) and tackle all sorts of technically difficult issues that will doubtless lead to many bugs, bad performance, improper threading and a great deal of portability effort
or
(b) compile your language into bytecode that can run on the Java VM which is already quite mature, fast and supported on a number of platforms (sometimes with more than one choice of vendor impementation).
Given that the JavaVM bytecode is not tied so closely to the Java language as to unduly restrict the type of language you can implement, it has been a popular target environment for languages that want to run in a VM.
Java is a fairly verbose programming language that is getting outdated very quickly with all of the new fancy languages/frameworks coming out in the past 5 years. To support all the fancy syntax that people want in a language AND preserve backwards compatibility it makes more sense to add more languages to the runtime.
Another benefit is it lets you run some web frameworks written in Ruby ala JRuby (aka Rails), or Grails(Groovy on Railys essentially), etc. on a proven hosting platform that likely already is in production at many companies, rather than having to using that not nearly as tried and tested Ruby hosting environments.
To compile the other languages you are just converting to Java byte code.
I would answer, “because Java sucks” but then again, perhaps that's too obvious … ;-)
The advantage to having other languages for the JVM is quite the same as the advantage to having other languages for computer in general: while all turing-complete languages can technically accomplish the same tasks, some languages make some tasks easier than others while other languages make other tasks easier. Since the JVM is something we already have the ability to run on all (well, nearly all) computers, and a lot of computers, in fact already have it, we can get the "write once, run anywhere" benefit, but without requiring that one uses Java.
Writing a language/compiler for the JVM isn't really different from writing one for a real machine. The real difference is that you have to compile to the JVM's bytecode instead of to the machine's executable code, but that's really a minor difference in the grand scheme of things.
Writing code for a language other than Java in the JVM really isn't different from writing Java except, of course, that you'll be using a different language. You'll compile using the compiler that somebody writes for it (again, not much different from a C compiler, fundamentally, and pretty much not different at all from a Java compiler), and you'll end up being able to run it just like you would compiled Java code since once it's in bytecode, the JVM can't tell what language it came from.
Different languages are tailored to different tasks. While certain problem domains fit the Java language perfectly, some are much easier to express in alternative languages. Also, for a user accustomed to Ruby, Python, etc, the ability to generate Java bytecode and take advantage of the JDK classes and JIT compiler has obvious benefits.
Answering just your second question:
The JVM is just an abstract machine and execution model. So targetting it with a compiler is just the same as any other machine and execution model that a compiler might target, be it implemented in hardware (x86, CELL, etc) or software (parrot, .NET). The JVM is fairly simple, so its actually a fairly easy target for compilers. Also, implementations tend to have pretty good JIT compilers (to deal with the lousy code that javac produces), so you can get good performance without having to worry about a lot of optimizations.
A couple of caveats apply. First, the JVM directly embodies java's module and inheritance system, so trying to do anything else (multiple inheritance, multiple dispatch) is likely to be tricky and require convoluted code. Second, JVMs are optimized to deal with the kind of bytecode that javac produces. Producing bytecode that is very different from this is likely to get into odd corners of the JIT compiler/JVM which will likely be inefficient at best (at worst, they can crash the JVM or at least give spurious VirtualMachineError exceptions).
What the JVM can do is defined by the JVM's bytecode (what you find in .class files) rather than the source language. So changing the high level source code language isn't going to have a substantial impact on the available functionality.
As for what is required to write a compiler for the JVM, all you really need to do is generate correct bytecode / .class files. How you write/compile code with an alternate compiler sort of depends on the compiler in question, but once the compiler outputs .class files, running them is no different than running the .class files generated by javac.
The advantage for these other languages is that they get relatively easy access to lots of java libraries.
The advantage for Java people varies depending on language -- each has a story tell Java coders about what they do better. Some will stress how they can be used to add dynamic scripting to JVM-based apps, others will just talk about how their language is easier to use, has a better syntax, or so forth.
What's required are the same things to write any other language compiler: parsing to an AST, then transforming that to instructions for the target architecture (byte code) and storing it in the right format (.class files).
From the users' perspective, you just write code and run the compiler binaries, and out comes .class files you can mix in with those your java compiler produces.
The .NET languages are more for show than actual usefulness. Each language has been so butchered, that they're all C# with a new face.
There are a variety of reasons to provide alternative languages for the Java VM:
The JVM is multiplatform. Any language ported to the JVM gets that as a free bonus.
There is quite a bit of legacy code out there. Antiquated engines like ColdFusion perform better while offering customers the ability to slowly phase their applications from the legacy solution to the modern solution.
Certain forms of scripting are better suited to rapid development. JavaFX, for example, is designed with rapid Graphical development in mind. In this way it competes with engines like DarkBasic. (Processing is another player in this space.)
Scripting environments can offer control. For example, an application may wish to expose a VBA-like environment to the user without exposing the underlying Java APIs. Using an engine like Rhino can provide an environment that supports quick and dirty coding in a carefully controlled sandbox.
Interpreted scripts mean that there's no need to recompile anything. No need to recompile translates into a more dynamic environment. e.g. Despite OpenOffice's use of Java as a "scripting language", Java sucks for that use. The user has to go through all kinds of recompile/reload gyrations that are unnecessary in a dynamic scripting environment like Javascript.
Which brings me to another point. Scripting engines can be more easily stopped and reloaded without stopping and reloading the entire JVM. This increases the utility of the scripting language as the environment can be reset at any time.
It's much easier for a compiler writer to generate JVM or CLR byte-codes. They are a much cleaner and higher level abstraction than any machine language. Because of this, it is much more feasible to experiment with creating new languages than ever before, because all you have to do is target one of these VM architectures and you will have a set of tools and libraries already available for your language. They let language designers focus more on the language than all the necessary support infrastructure.
Because the JSR process is rendering Java more and more dead: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/01/java7-updated
It's a shame that even essential and long known additions like Closures are not added just because the members cannot agree on an implementation.
Java has accumulated a massive user base over seven major versions (from 1.0 to 1.6). Its capability to evolve is limited by the need to preserve backwards compatibility for the uncountable millions of lines of Java code running in production.
This is a problem because Java needs to evolve to:
compete with newer programming languages that have learned from Java's successes and failures.
incorporate new advances in programming language design.
allow users to take full advantage of advances in hardware - e.g. multi-core processors.
fix some cutting edge ideas that introduced unexpected problems (e.g. checked exceptions, generics).
The requirement for backwards compatibility is a barrier to staying competitive.
If you compare Java to C#, Java has the advantage in mature, production ready libraries and frameworks, and a disadvantage in terms of language features and rate of increase in market share. This is what you would expect from comparing two successful languages that are one generation apart.
Any new language has the same advantage and disadvantage that C# has compared to Java to an extreme degree. One way of maximizing the advantage in terms of language features, and minimizing the disadvantage in terms of mature libraries and frameworks is to build the language for an existing virtual machine and make it interoperable with code written for that virtual machine. This is the reason behind the modest success of Groovy and Clojure; and the excitement around Scala. Without the JVM these languages could only ever have occupied a tiny niche in a very specialized market segment, whereas with the JVM they occupy a significant niche in the mainstream.
They do it to keep up with .Net. .Net allows C#, VB, J# (formerly), F#, Python, Ruby (coming soon), and c++. I'm probably missing some. Probably the big one in there is Python, for the scripting people.
To an extent it is probably an 'Arms Race' against the .NET CLR.
But I think there are also genuine reasons for introducing new languages to the JVM, particularly when they will be run 'in parallel', you can use the right language for the right job, a scripting language like Groovy may be exactly what you need for your page presentation, whereas regular old Java is better for your business logic.
I'm going to leave someone more qualified to talk about what is required to write a new language/compiler.
As for how to writing code, you do it in notepad/vi as usual! (or use a development tool that supports the language if you want to do it the easy way.) Compiling will require a special compiler for the language that will interpret and compile it into bytecode.
Since java also produces bytecode technically you don't need to do anything special to run it.
The reason is that the JVM platform offers a lot of advantages.
Giant number of libraries
Broader degree of platform
implementations
Mature frameworks
Legacy code that's
already part of your infrastructure
The languages Sun is trying to support with their Scripting spec (e.g. Python, Ruby) are up and comers largely due to their perceived productivity enhancements. Running Jython allows you to, in theory, be more productive, and leverage the capabilities of Python to solve a problem more suited to Python, but still be able to integrate, on a runtime level, with your existing codebase. The classic implementations of Python and Ruby effect the same ability for C libraries.
Additionally, it's often easier to express some things in a dynamic language than in Java. If this is the case, you can go the other way; consume Python/Ruby libraries from Java.
There's a performance hit, but many are willing to accept that in exchange for a less verbose, clearer codebase.