From the Article: scripting languages weren't really designed for large-scale development efforts involving millions of lines of code
In this instance Carmark is talking about a specific instance - scripting for high-performance games, that still need to work with the tradeoff of high levels of reliability.
He even mentions tempted by functional languages such as Haskell and Caml. Then he lists a couple of reasons it's not appropriate - performance is one, the learning curve is the other.
He then goes on to say that he'd think about it differently, but that performance is such a dominating factor and issue for them. That's driving the majority of the logic.
So I'd not draw too long a bow to suggest that he's canning scripting languages in general. I think the author is stretching with that statement.
you'll have fewer lines of code and clearer separation between components
I think that's the most important statement. If you have millions of lines of code, the answer to to _write less_... and that's where dynamic & functional languages are so important.
I've worked on large codebases. It's rare that one language can cover the whole domain without some big potholes appearing (when I say cover I mean vertically in terms of low-high level code and horizontally in terms of function). That's where your DSL and dynamic languages some into play.
In this instance Carmark is talking about a specific instance - scripting for high-performance games, that still need to work with the tradeoff of high levels of reliability.
He even mentions tempted by functional languages such as Haskell and Caml. Then he lists a couple of reasons it's not appropriate - performance is one, the learning curve is the other.
He then goes on to say that he'd think about it differently, but that performance is such a dominating factor and issue for them. That's driving the majority of the logic.
So I'd not draw too long a bow to suggest that he's canning scripting languages in general. I think the author is stretching with that statement.
you'll have fewer lines of code and clearer separation between components
I think that's the most important statement. If you have millions of lines of code, the answer to to _write less_... and that's where dynamic & functional languages are so important.
I've worked on large codebases. It's rare that one language can cover the whole domain without some big potholes appearing (when I say cover I mean vertically in terms of low-high level code and horizontally in terms of function). That's where your DSL and dynamic languages some into play.