> Intel Arc GPU rendering issues have nothing to do with Godot’s choice of high-level scripting language.

The GitHub repo for Godot has 83'164 commits. Let me pull an arbitrary unimportant number out of my ass, which is 6 hours of work per commit on average (lots of small ones, some that take weeks, doesn't matter) and we get 498'984 hours which we can round to 500k for our napkin maths.

There's around 52k LoC for the gdscript module, about 1'380 files. Around 5% of the overall commits in the repo are in that module, we can up that to like 7% to account for docs and editor and other parts, but we don't have to assume higher. That gives us about 35k hours spent on GDScript.

Remove GDScript and you get 35k hours to put elsewhere, including Intel Arc support. It's the exact same principle of Linux distros having like a dozen desktop environments and the efforts being so fragmented that it's impossible to make a single really good one (though there are different goals for the projects, for example KDE vs something lightweight like LXQt).

Of course, I addressed the possibility that people working on GDScript just wouldn't be able to work on the other stuff, so one should argue that redistributing work would be quite complex and since it's a lot of volunteer work, people might just not care to work on X instead of Y, that was addressed here:

> On the other hand, there's no guarantee that any of those devs would fix the other issues if their efforts were to be redirected.

That said, the above is more or less why Unity benefitted in regards to development velocity from saying goodbye to ECMAScript and Boo (or maybe they shot themselves in the foot, cause prototyping is slower compared to GDScript).