Thread: [GD-General] Re: C# versus C++ for game engines
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-general
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2003-02-20 13:04:37
|
2003 February 20th Thursday By the way, I am already aware of the ExoCortex engine, and I can search for other C# game engines, so I am only interested in hearing about personal C# experience, particularly if you had any serious peeves or problems... --- Colin cp...@ea... P.S.: There were two significant spelling errors in my previous e-mail message: INCONSISTENT: comittment (CONSISTENT: commitment) INCONSISTENT: comperable (CONSISTENT: comparable) Did you catch them? Add 10 points to your score! |
|
From: Timur D. <ti...@cr...> - 2003-02-20 17:22:37
|
Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future, Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority of game = engines. Although language itself is with no doubt very cool. > -----Original Message----- > From: Javier Arevalo [mailto:ja...@py...] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:32 PM > To: gam...@li... > Subject: Re: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines >=20 >=20 > Noel Llopis <ll...@co...> wrote: >=20 > >> I strongly believe that C# is a worthy successor to C++, > > > > This is a serious question, not an attempt at trolling. I have read > > some about C# and I really don't see what the big deal is for most > > game programming. The way I see it, changing languages is something > > that will be painful and cause a medium-term productivity loss, so > > there must be some *extremely* compelling reasons to change. >=20 > Overall I like C# a lot, and I think that given a few years to reach > maturity (anyone remember C++ without multiple inheritance or=20 > templates?) it > will be a fantastic language. The fact that module interfaces=20 > are compiled > into the binary instead of relying on the archaic "include" method is > definitely a huge step forward from C++. Attributes and=20 > reflection should > make interfacing with other languages / tools much easier,=20 > too. I like the > fact that some patterns (Interfaces for example) are burned into the > language. >=20 > The problems you point out, however, make its adoption=20 > unadvisable for most > game projects. There is not a lot of productivity to gain=20 > compared to the > costs involved. I wonder if this situation will remain the=20 > same in, say, 5 > years. >=20 > > Automatic garbage collection... shrug. It really doesn't seem that > > much of a big deal. Do people spend all that much time with memory > > problems in their apps? >=20 > Certainly not. If a game developer has trouble with memory=20 > management / > leaks, I'm sure that is only the tip of a huge iceberg of=20 > problems waiting > to show up. >=20 > Javier Arevalo > Pyro Studios >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. > The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. > Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. > www.slickedit.com/sourceforge > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D557 >=20 |
|
From: Wayne C. <wc...@re...> - 2003-02-21 09:43:11
|
> except that microsoft has declared that they will be suing and attacking > any attempts at reverse engineering their .net technology... > > the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result. Maybe I'm missing something here, but Microsoft released the source-code for the C# compiler and the CLI amongst other things in order to get it ported to other platforms. Using that would be different to 'reverse engineering' their commercial compiler (which, AFAIK, has a 'more advanced' codebase). http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?ur l=/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/msdncompositedoc.xml Wayney -Virus scanned and cleared ok |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-02-21 20:09:52
|
C# for game engines, in a nutshell: Pros: Reflection. Cons: FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms. Cheers, Phil |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2003-02-23 17:51:00
|
2003 February 23rd Sunday Okay, I see a trend... ============================================================================ >>> [...] I have read some >>> about C# and I really don't see what the big deal is for most game >>> programming. The way I see it, changing languages is something that will >>> be painful and cause a medium-term productivity loss, so there must be >>> some *extremely* compelling reasons to change. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> The problems you point out, however, make its adoption unadvisable for most >>> game projects. There is not a lot of productivity to gain compared to the >>> costs involved. [...] ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future, >>> Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority >>> of game engines. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> C# for game engines, in a nutshell: >>> Pros: Reflection. >>> Cons: FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms. ============================================================================ The consensus seems to be that switching to C# is the way to go for all current and future video game projects, because of its gained portability, medium-term productivity, compelling "big deal", and foreseeable viability. I didn't expect this kind of universal support for such a new development platform, especially given the kind of professional experience of the people who post to this mailing list, but I am humble and I hear what you guys are saying. Now it's full-steam ahead with my C# game engine! I'm so glad that I'm not alone on this one. I am really psyched that major players in the industry have embraced C# as their new game engine technology. For a while I thought I was going to have to bash Microsoft for inventing C# as a way to sell more software, books, and seminars, and as a way to divide mind-share and sue people. How cynical could I get?! Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights. --- Colin cp...@ea... |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-02-23 20:23:51
|
Colin: > Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights. LOL! Do bear in mind that C++ was first devised in 1979, nearly two decades before the games industry started using it seriously. Cheers, Phil PS Now if you'd said you were starting a new game engine in Lisp... |
|
From: George W. <ge...@ap...> - 2003-02-24 17:24:11
|
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:48:34 -0800, "Colin Fahey" <cp...@ea...> wrote: > ============================================================================ >>>> Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future, >>>> Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority >>>> of game engines. > ============================================================================ >>>> C# for game engines, in a nutshell: >>>> Pros: Reflection. >>>> Cons: FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms. > ============================================================================ > > The consensus seems to be that switching to C# is the way to go for > all current and future video game projects, because of its gained > portability, medium-term productivity, compelling "big deal", and > foreseeable viability. Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained portability?!? Go back and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future," & "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.". -- Enjoy, George Warner, Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS) |
|
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-02-24 17:39:40
|
> Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained > portability?!? Go back > and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any > foreseeable future," & > "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.". How did Jesus say it (Sorry, I'm jewish), "He who has not sinned shall cast the first stone" ? He was using Sarcasm, you can tell by the sentance "Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights." |
|
From: George W. <ge...@ap...> - 2003-02-24 21:16:08
|
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:39:31 -0000, Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...> wrote: >> Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained >> portability?!? Go back >> and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any >> foreseeable future," & >> "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.". > > How did Jesus say it (Sorry, I'm jewish), "He who has not sinned shall cast > the first stone" ? > > He was using Sarcasm, you can tell by the sentance > > "Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off > of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your > insights." Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa & Objective-C! ;-) [\SARCASM] -- Enjoy, George Warner, Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS) |
|
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-02-24 21:53:32
|
George Warner <ge...@ap...>: > Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa & Objective-C! ;-) Not Dylan? Cheers, Phil PS I actually quite liked Dylan... |
|
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-02-25 10:21:20
|
Yes, but when Dylan split up with Brenda (Shannon D'horty) I kind of decided he was a twat. Oops, this isn't the 90210 mailing list ? > -----Original Message----- > From: phi...@pl... > [mailto:phi...@pl...] > Sent: 24 February 2003 21:49 > To: gam...@li... > Subject: RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines > > > > George Warner <ge...@ap...>: > > Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa & > Objective-C! ;-) > > Not Dylan? > > Cheers, > Phil > > PS I actually quite liked Dylan... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X