Shouldn't the script be a node itself?

JohnKirk

To be consistent with the node design philosophy of Godot, wouldn't be better if the script was a node in itself instead of something you attach to a node? Discuss.

DaveTheCoder

I'm only a Godot newbie, but I think the way it's done now makes sense. Nodes are instances of classes inherited from other classes. Nodes have properties and methods, and can have parent and child nodes.

Megalomaniak

The script is a node, it extends the node it's connected to, in that sense it is part of the node it's attached to.

To phrase it differently, when you attach a script to a node you are creating a new node that extends the node(class) you attached the script to.

TwistedTwigleg

To add that what has already been said: Internally in the source code, all of the nodes are actually just code that extends other classes/nodes, with the only node exception being the Node class, which is the lowest base on which all nodes are built on top of.

newmodels

What I want to see, is mutli-script attachments. But godot would need a way to seperate and access them in code.

Megalomaniak

if you extend a node with a script making a new node and you then extend that node by attaching a script and make a new node...

newmodels

Yeah I have multi-nodes with their own scripts. But too me this is insufficient. They are all spatial nodes and get their transform updated when the game piece moves.

TwistedTwigleg

@newmodels said: Yeah I have multi-nodes with their own scripts. But too me this is insufficient. They are all spatial nodes and get their transform updated when the game piece moves.

You can use a Node to act as a script holder, then its as light as possible (no transform, visibility, etc) while also processing another script.