That's the thing, though. The whole idea behind all of this (IMHO) is to serve the specific needs of specific people on your team: Who are the team members who generally prefer the simpler programming interface of scripting languages? Technical artists and designers. Who are the team members who most greatly benefit from fast, runtime reloading? Technical artists and designers. They do far more tweak something->re-test->repeat-style programming than anyone else. Who are the team members least likely to be running Visual Studio, and therefore most likely to not be interested in Edit and Continue? Technical artists and designers Again, I don't intend to sound heavy-handed here because I know every team works differently, I'm just wondering where we are headed with this discussion... Do any of us really know any programmers that decided to adopt a scripting language only to massively regret it later? Or maybe chose Lua and then beat themselves up over not choosing Angelscript? I guess I'm just failing to see where the life-or-death risk assessment is here. Adoption is generally a few days' work, tops, and most of the popular languages are robust enough to handle any task satisfactorily enough to avoid requiring a painful, mid-project tear down.