This is just my opinion! Others can have different opinions, and that's fine! I have nothing against people using visual programming languages, I just personally do not like using them.
I think there is definitely potential for cross platform, cross engine visual programming language, if it works consistently across all platforms/engines. If you can see the converted code, it could prove to be a interesting learning resource on how to achieve various tasks in game development across different game engines, without necessarily having to know how to program in each language/engine. Another potential advantage I can see in using a cross platform visual programming language like this is you have the ability to change game engines if you so desire, and you do not lose your code.
However, I think that teaching visual programming to those unfamiliar with programming is a bad idea. Unless they transition to using a text based programming language once they are familiar with the 'concepts' of programming that a visual language provides, those learning to use the visual programming language will not really have much more experience than someone starting out, since they rely on having to have a visual programming language, which the majority of game-engines/programming-languages do not provide.
This is fine if they are happy using the visual programming language, and if that is what they want, then more power to them! But from a learning/education perspective, using a visual programming language only teaches them the very basics of programming, and does not really prepare/teach how to program in text based programming languages, which are used by the majority of programmers in the computer science field. This means they will still have to learn a text based programming language if they want to program beyond the limitations of the visual programming language, and if they want to (potentially) land a job in computer science.
Another potential snag I can see in using a visual programming language, is adding additional functionality and keeping it up to date with the game engines. I'm sure you guys plan on keeping the language compilers/interpreters as up to date as possible, but given how many engines you are supporting, I imagine it will either be very time consuming to upkeep, or support for engine specific functionality will be limited at best.
Personally, from my experience using both Scratch and Stencyl, visual programming languages make the basics easier, but anything beyond that is harder to do in a visual scripting language than it is to do in a written language. I do not know if that is the case for your visual scripting language, but it is something I have encountered with other visual scripting languages in the past. If you have figured out how to make it work with both simple stuff (moving characters around, simple trigger based interactions) and more advance stuff (multiple characters, dialog systems) then you'd certainly have a leg up over the visual programming languages I have used in the past.
The biggest problem I think you are going to come across in trying to make a visual programming language for Godot is there is already a visual programming language in Godot, VisualScript. I have not used VisualScript, but it seems to have all of the basic functionality one would expect in a programming language. If you have additional features or some other functionality VisualScript does not have, then maybe using your visual scripting language over VisualScript will be favorable, but since VisualScript is officially supported in Godot, most people using Godot will likely want to use VisualScript since it's the official visual scripting language.
All of that said, I have nothing wrong with the idea of having another visual programming language. I would not use it, but it's not aimed at more experienced programmers like me anyway. That is just my two cents on visual programming and the project itself. I wish you guys the best of luck in securing funding for your project! :smile:
