BS marketing on the front page: misleading and uninformed. Mostly false.

C# and C++ are also industry-standard languages. The point also applies to them, in the sense that those are also better languages than tool-specific languages - which it seems you agree with. It's talking about the disadvantages of tool-specific programming languages like GDScript and GML where that programming language is only used by one piece of software.

For example, if you want to write some server-side code, you'll have a much easier time with an industry-standard language - C# and JavaScript in particular are great for that (ASP.NET, node.js etc). Suppose you want to branch out in to some other part of the tech world - those skills are far more useful and have far more jobs available than any tool-specific language.

Education is also an important part of the business for us, and so we're also posing the question to teachers: do you want your students to learn an industry-standard language they can directly get a job working with? Or will they be learning some tool-specific language that won't provide as easily transferable skills?

Perhaps you think C++ and C# are better languages than JavaScript for game development, but that's not the point we're making: I'd also say C++ and C# are much better options than tool-specific languages, for the same reasons.

For me "don't invent your own programming language" is the hill I will die on - I think it's a big strategic mistake, even though it seems lots of people disagree. We're making the point that for developers writing code, there are a lot of benefits to using an industry-standard language, be it C++, C#, JavaScript, or any other major existing language.

I think fedca understands the point I was making better I think.

Ashley - I have used construct a lot in education settings, I have taught 3rd -> 6th and I think you misunderstand my point.

I'm not arguing you should have invented a language for construct. that is a hill I agree you should die on, I would do the same. I'm saying no other major game engine forces you to use a proprietary language any more than construct does. Gamemaker gets the closest to forcing you into gmsl, but you can create c++ libraries and sidestep that.

In unreal, you can use blue prints. Those won't translate out of unreal. Or you can use c++. In Unity, you can use bolt, playmaker, or any other graph tool to design logic. Or you can use c#. Godot offers both c# and c++, but some people like the built in language.

In construct, the primary selling point is no coding required, because speed and ease. So you use event sheets, and just like in the other engines, like gamemaker gmsl, that specific knowledge base won't transfer exactly.... but you can indeed use javascript, but using javascript in construct is harder than c++ in unreal and c# in unity. Milage may vary, but I can get 6th graders coding in unity much faster than in construct. Creating a functional asteroids like game all in code takes much less work in unity, unreal, and gamemaker.

Typescript has improved c3 coding times a huge bit, but it is totally disingenuous to use comparative language in marketing when the engines that are comparable don't have an issue that makes construct a better choice.

Construct is cool because you don't have to program. In that, I would argue it is the most advanced tool while also being super simple to pick up. When you are ready to "level up", it supports javascript, which learning that is a translatable skill, meaning you don't have to switch engines if learning to code is your ambition.

My point is that the marketing statement on the front page makes it sound like using other game engines is a bad idea for reasons that construct alone amongst its peers has solved. This just isn't true.

The point is about traditional programming languages, not event sheets, though. There isn't yet any visual system that is comparable in reach across the industry to languages like C# and JS. Maybe one day that will change, but until then, if you are going to learn a traditional programming language, there are very good reasons to use an industry-standard language. That's the point it's making.

Well, right. I get that, but I am saying that other engines also don't force you into a proprietary model, which the marketing language implies. It is a comparative statement that is misleading. It should just highlight constructs strengths, not rely on making a comparison that isn't relevant.

Gamemaker is the worst of the lot, and in most ways construct has an objective advantage over it. But even it doesn't require gsml at this point.