Add Java/Kotlin to the list of other language bindings

[stan220]

Add Java/Kotlin language link

[stan220]

Hi, guys @tetrapod00, @paddy-exe, @dsnopek, @skyace65, @aaronfranke, @bruvzg, @AThousandShips, @mhilbrunner, @Mickeon Could you plz approve JVM project? This project is not mine, but I use it and I want more people to know about it.

[AThousandShips]

Please do not ping random people to bump your PR, people will take a look at this when they are able, but trying to rush people is not going to make it go faster, quite the opposite

[stan220]

Please do not ping random people to bump your PR, people will take a look at this when they are able, but trying to rush people is not going to make it go faster, quite the opposite

Oh, sorry. I just added the people who approved the last commit to this file. I understand you, I won't do that anymore.

[aaronfranke]

The PR is pretty simple.

[dsnopek]

One thing that may be worth pointing out is that this project appears to be a Godot module; whereas I think the rest of the bindings on the list are GDExtensions?

That said, that's probably fine, and I think it's still worth helping users find it. But should we include a note of some kind about this?

[stan220]

Do you have any ideas on how to make it better? As for me, could leave it that way for now

[skyace65]

@mhilbrunner are we still requiring Foundation review for linking stuff like this?

[stan220]

One thing that may be worth pointing out is that this project appears to be a Godot module; whereas I think the rest of the bindings on the list are GDExtensions?

That said, that's probably fine, and I think it's still worth helping users find it. But should we include a note of some kind about this?

What about to change from Java/Kotlin to JVM Module?

[dsnopek]

I think Java/Kotlin is better than JVM (since it's a list of languages)

But to include the fact that it's a module, it could maybe be like:

- `Java/Kotlin <https://github.com/utopia-rise/godot-kotlin-jvm>`__ (Godot module)

I'm not sure, though. If we did that, maybe we should also add some other note explicitly stating that the others are GDExtensions? I'm very curious what other folks think, especially the docs maintainers