I.e. if you're goal is to make a more advanced game with some polish no it's not great. On the other hand if your goal is to get some simple stuff to appear on the screen in the way you want and interact with it it's great.
projects like defold / godot a pretty neat but they are more opionionated: they have a hierarchal structure.
As usual, a disclaimer that I am the host of these conferences.
Raylib: a simple and easy-to-use library to enjoy game programming - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932206 - Jan 2019 (29 comments)
The ones linked there 404s. But i found these bindings:
For a fork of raylib found here
From what i can tell though, this fork is 11 commits behind the master branch but was updated a few days ago so i'm a bit confused...
There is no need to maintain bindings that can be automatically generated, wich can easily get outdated if the C project is actively developped
Anyways, someone went a ahead and updated it: https://github.com/Soaku/raylib-d
Though it looks like it is for Raylib 3.0 (latest is 3.5).
Why is this being shown off as simple and easy to use? Or am I misunderstanding the project page's message?
And from my personal experience with raylib I can attest that it is easy-to-use.
and you are exactly doing what a scripter would do:
"baahhh programming is daunting, can you give me some interface where i can click on things pls?"
Let's preface things by saying there is nothing wrong with raylib or the approach where you write everything yourself. But vanishingly few games were made without other tools in particular tools to help with spatial layout and data entry. Have you tried setting up a moderately complex set of blend trees in a state machine for animation in text? This is more significant the more data driven your engine, in particular with modern composable entities a text only view of the world becomes very hard to understand quite quickly.
All more featured IDEs give you is a set of modifiable tools that you don't need to write yourself.
The view that there is a distinction between scripters and programmers is also poisonous. It's antagonistic and sows division when making a game is a team sport.
"Scripting" is also nothing new and scripting languages for game development are almost as old as games themselves. We're all just laying out logic to get the computer to do things. Whether that's using a visual language to setup game levels and AI, or text to sort and submit render jobs. Some of the better gameplay engineers I know actually started programming in scripting languages for games. Building tools at the right level for people to do their jobs is basically a good 80% of a programmers job in game development.
In fact I think this is the first time I've ever heard anything positive about it without a laundry list of caveats.
There have even been stories here about devs being threatened by fans, iirc.
For 2D, it's in the top 3 for me (GMS2 and Godot being the other 2). I have no idea if it's any good for 3D but it's cool that it even has VR support.
The library owner on github site say about it:
"Most probably a false positive. In any case, it's an open-source project, if you find malicius code, please report."
Very disappointed because now I need to examine all the source code and I just want to see a basic demo running.
I trust AVG because every day I'm running every app I found on the internet.
False positives can be quite common with anti-virus software, since they tend to err on the side of caution, and if it is indeed a false positive, you should report it to the antivirus company itself rather than the developer of the library.