Thread: [Algorithms] Is C++ the standard language for game development?
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
From: Kieran C. <ki...@kc...> - 2001-08-17 20:31:43
|
Hello everyone.. (first post :) The recent question regarding the existence of C++ compilers for = consoles made me wonder - is C++ now the standard language for both PC = and console game development? I appreciate that there will always be 'critical' routines written in = assembler, but otherwise, is C++ considered superior over C for game = development? If so, why? If not, why not?! Many thanks, Kieran. |
From: Jason D. <jas...@bl...> - 2001-08-17 21:56:33
|
Assuming a reasonable level of skill with both C and C++, most programmers will use one or the other where appropriate. Some things are easier to code in C than in C++ (sin, cos, abs, ...) while others are excellent candidates for C++'s templates, inheritance, and overloading (vector math, AI routines, plugin architectures, etc). I code primarily in C++, with the occasional C or ASM fallback. It took a while before I got the idea, and I'm sure I wrote some really bad C++ in the beginning. I think that overall, if written well, C++ makes for cleaner, more readable, and more reusable code. In terms of performance, C++ and C are so close these days that the old "C is faster" is now more of a religious argument. Static member variables/functions are identical to C (no "this" pointer required). Jason Dorie BlackBoxGames -----Original Message----- From: gda...@li... [mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Kieran Connell Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 1:34 PM To: gda...@li... Subject: [Algorithms] Is C++ the standard language for game development? Hello everyone.. (first post :) The recent question regarding the existence of C++ compilers for consoles made me wonder - is C++ now the standard language for both PC and console game development? I appreciate that there will always be 'critical' routines written in assembler, but otherwise, is C++ considered superior over C for game development? If so, why? If not, why not?! Many thanks, Kieran. |
From: Rupert V. T. <dev...@ya...> - 2001-08-18 00:41:08
|
void foo() { static int count = 0; static myclass(g_someNonConstData); } I do find it very hard to believe that any good optimizing compiler will wait for a hidden flag to be set before assigning a constant value to a local static var (as in count above). However myclass would indeed require an implicit initialization flag. However, the implicit intialization warning had been asserted to refute the following true statement about static MEMBERS: --- Jason Dorie <jas...@bl...> wrote: > In terms of performance, C++ and C are so close > these days that the old "C > is faster" is now more of a religious argument. > Static member > variables/functions are identical to C (no "this" > pointer required). > > Jason Dorie > BlackBoxGames __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ |