4 ms·
Doubtful, he has his own programming language explicitly because of Rust forcing the user to do it 'the rust way' with boxed types etc. he doesn't want to be p
by Sleaker 11y ago
Doubtful, he has his own programming language explicitly because of Rust forcing the user to do it 'the rust way' with boxed types etc. he doesn't want to be pigeonholed. It's not going to appeal to people like him, and I think the OP is getting into some good reasons on why Rust probably wont ever be a good language for game programming.
- pcwalton 11y ago> I think the OP is getting into some good reasons on why Rust probably wont ever be a good language for game programming This is much stronger than the OP was claiming, or than I would claim. None of the issues raised are fundamental; note that very few people in the Rust community, gamedev or otherwise, are asking for less safety. I write things very similar to games on a daily basis in Rust, and I've found that the Rust way actually works very well.
- dkhenry 11y agoNothing in that list makes me think Rust won't ever be a good language for game programming. It reads more like these are the current pain points that need to be addressed, and even with that list there are no real showstoppers there. Most are just nuances that they would like to see addressed.
- Manishearth 11y agoIt's a wishlist, and the OP is a prominent member of the Rust community. Most of those things are minor pain points (he even mentions "None of these are critical.") that he hopes can be improved on.
- kibwen 11y ago> forcing the user to do it 'the rust way' with boxed types This is mistaken, everything in Rust is unboxed and on the stack by default. You have to go out of your way to box something (with, appropriately, `Box::new` (or the forthcoming `box` operator)).