7 ms·

Any large enough game will use C/C++ at its core because short of using assembly, it's the only real choice we have. C#, Lisp or whatever else are nice for game

by okatsu 11y ago

Any large enough game will use C/C++ at its core because short of using assembly, it's the only real choice we have. C#, Lisp or whatever else are nice for gameplay scripting, but underneath there is a need for control that most languages will not give you. Same thing for anything with hard real-time requirements.

such_a_casual 11y ago
So? That's completely irrelevant to the argument.
- okatsu 11y ago
  Your argument is that people only use C++ because of existing libraries and engines My response is that we use C++ for the language itself, existing engine or not. :)
anonymoushn 11y ago
The JVM is fine for running low-latency automated trading systems. I wonder why it's not suitable for applications with timing requirements that are hundreds of times more relaxed? I don't know if the JVM is better or worse for this than some other runtime like Go's or the CLR or whatever, I just wrote about the JVM because it is the one that I have used in this context.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > The JVM is fine for running low-latency automated trading systems. 1. There is a lot of expert tuning to get that sort of performance with respect to latency. That tuning would need to be reproduced for every target system. 2. Those trading systems can have ridiculous amounts of RAM to give the JVM GC lots of room to work with. 3. Reading packets from a wire and writing other packets to a wire is a different problem than reading controller inputs and modelling complex 3D worlds. ...that's not to say you can't have AAA Java games. To some degree that already happens with Android games, at least if you're willing to stretch the definition of AAA. (If you define AAA as "uses C++", the nomenclature becomes fairly moot).
  - plonh 11y ago
    Minecraft is Java. It has awful performance (but it's simple enough and mixed desktops are powerful enough)

by okatsu 11y ago

such_a_casual 11y ago

So? That's completely irrelevant to the argument.

okatsu 11y ago
Your argument is that people only use C++ because of existing libraries and engines My response is that we use C++ for the language itself, existing engine or not. :)

anonymoushn 11y ago

The JVM is fine for running low-latency automated trading systems. I wonder why it's not suitable for applications with timing requirements that are hundreds of times more relaxed? I don't know if the JVM is better or worse for this than some other runtime like Go's or the CLR or whatever, I just wrote about the JVM because it is the one that I have used in this context.

humanrebar 11y ago
> The JVM is fine for running low-latency automated trading systems. 1. There is a lot of expert tuning to get that sort of performance with respect to latency. That tuning would need to be reproduced for every target system. 2. Those trading systems can have ridiculous amounts of RAM to give the JVM GC lots of room to work with. 3. Reading packets from a wire and writing other packets to a wire is a different problem than reading controller inputs and modelling complex 3D worlds. ...that's not to say you can't have AAA Java games. To some degree that already happens with Android games, at least if you're willing to stretch the definition of AAA. (If you define AAA as "uses C++", the nomenclature becomes fairly moot).
- plonh 11y ago
  Minecraft is Java. It has awful performance (but it's simple enough and mixed desktops are powerful enough)