4 ms·

True enough. However, I'm willing to bet that a non-trivial amount of nightmarish code in C++ comes from the language itself. Also, I'm willing to be that a Rus

True enough. However, I'm willing to bet that a non-trivial amount of nightmarish code in C++ comes from the language itself. Also, I'm willing to be that a Rust build would be an improvement over a C++ build. As an example, I'm really sick of header files.

madmax96 10y ago
Maybe, maybe not. I think that you can write horrible code in any language (albeit horrible rust is safer than horrible C++ obviously). Especially considering the case when you're working on extremely compressed deadlines like many game shops, you're always in for a nightmare.
nercht12 10y ago
Yes and no. Rust adds its own set of hassles. You think building becomes a synch? With Rust, you're fighting the compiler probably more than with C++. I'm sure some game developers would rather have an occasional crash they can fix down the road after their game is published than be forced to make a perfect system the first time. Remember, with game production, it's about time-to-market, not about perfect code.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  Being able to cut corners with code hygiene works both ways though for productivity: you don't want to realize a week before a deadline that you have a hard-to-find memory leak or crash. A lot of the time it feels like rust development is slow because you are fighting the compiler. On the other hand once you run the program you often get that Haskell-y "it worked because it compiled" feeling. With a normal OO language I often build/run just to spot the next place I have made some bad assumption that the compiler didn't catch.
  - jstimpfle 10y ago
    I haven't experienced that feeling for anything but toy programs. But concerning productivity: fighting the compiler sometimes means abandoning perfectly reasonable (and efficient!) designs just because the compiler doesn't like them. I'm not aware of any type corsets that I think force good designs. In a really clean design mistakes are not terribly hard to fix, even in a language like C. Granted in C they are in some cases harder to find in the first place, but there might not be any commercial interest in going beyond "it seems to work".
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      Having to fight the compiler over reasonable code that the compiler doesn't like will happen with any type system, you don't need one with lifetimes to have that. The question is of course where to draw the line (where the drawbacks outweigh). I really like how you opting out of the guarantees, e.g. to initialize a doubly linked pointer you might just drop to unsafe because you can overview the memory safety implications of those two lines, but not the whole program. How effective (and thus popular) Rust will be for creating large systems on tight deadlines remains to be seen I suppose - if it isn't competitive with C++ in that respect, then I'd consider that a failure. And a surprise.
    - tome 10y ago
      > fighting the compiler sometimes means abandoning perfectly reasonable (and efficient!) designs just because the compiler doesn't like them. Citation needed!
      - jstimpfle 10y ago
        No.
      - oconnor663 10y ago
        One thing that's hard to do in safe code is getting two &mut references out of a HashMap at the same time. (If you know the keys are disjoint.) That might matter to some design somewhere?
    - lmm 10y ago
      The type corsets of ML-family languages have been the best design experience I've ever had. My programming intuition has got a lot better by using them; it's much easier to spot that there's a subtle issue with the design if it shows up as friction in the types. Even in something like Python the lessons apply, though I have to devote a lot more attention to it since I can't rely on the compiler to show me. Just my subjective experience of course.
      - jstimpfle 10y ago
- coolsunglasses 10y ago
  Cinch, like cinching up a belt. Synch is short for synchronization.
  - nercht12 10y ago
    Oops. Thanks.
- niketn 10y ago
  This might be a large investment for the engine itself, but minimal investment for the game. In my experience, the largest, buggiest and most complicated parts of a game are all contained within the engine.
- solidsnack9000 10y ago
  > I'm sure some game developers would rather have an occasional crash they can fix down the road after their game is published than be forced to make a perfect system the first time. > Remember, with game production, it's about time-to-market, not about perfect code. In a way you are over-selling Rust, because it doesn't offer perfect code! I'm not sure why Mozilla would pay to build it if that's what it was about. What it offers is a lower defect rate, which is something you can definitely leverage to improve productivity. Lower defect rate at any cost is clearly too expensive; but developers seem to have been able to absorb the complexity of C++ alright and it Rust can't be called more complex than C++.
  - nercht12 10y ago
    To be clear, I didn't say Rust offered perfect code. But supposedly better code comes from Rust, as you're arguing. While Rust as a language isn't more complex, the paradigms are different. Games often have trees and lists, which are a real pain in Rust. To do things right in Rust requires learning new ways of doing things - not something game devs want to spend time on. They've been working with the same horse for years, so they keep riding it.

madmax96 10y ago

Maybe, maybe not. I think that you can write horrible code in any language (albeit horrible rust is safer than horrible C++ obviously). Especially considering the case when you're working on extremely compressed deadlines like many game shops, you're always in for a nightmare.

nercht12 10y ago

Yes and no. Rust adds its own set of hassles. You think building becomes a synch? With Rust, you're fighting the compiler probably more than with C++. I'm sure some game developers would rather have an occasional crash they can fix down the road after their game is published than be forced to make a perfect system the first time. Remember, with game production, it's about time-to-market, not about perfect code.

alkonaut 10y ago
Being able to cut corners with code hygiene works both ways though for productivity: you don't want to realize a week before a deadline that you have a hard-to-find memory leak or crash. A lot of the time it feels like rust development is slow because you are fighting the compiler. On the other hand once you run the program you often get that Haskell-y "it worked because it compiled" feeling. With a normal OO language I often build/run just to spot the next place I have made some bad assumption that the compiler didn't catch.
- jstimpfle 10y ago
  I haven't experienced that feeling for anything but toy programs. But concerning productivity: fighting the compiler sometimes means abandoning perfectly reasonable (and efficient!) designs just because the compiler doesn't like them. I'm not aware of any type corsets that I think force good designs. In a really clean design mistakes are not terribly hard to fix, even in a language like C. Granted in C they are in some cases harder to find in the first place, but there might not be any commercial interest in going beyond "it seems to work".
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    Having to fight the compiler over reasonable code that the compiler doesn't like will happen with any type system, you don't need one with lifetimes to have that. The question is of course where to draw the line (where the drawbacks outweigh). I really like how you opting out of the guarantees, e.g. to initialize a doubly linked pointer you might just drop to unsafe because you can overview the memory safety implications of those two lines, but not the whole program. How effective (and thus popular) Rust will be for creating large systems on tight deadlines remains to be seen I suppose - if it isn't competitive with C++ in that respect, then I'd consider that a failure. And a surprise.
  - tome 10y ago
    > fighting the compiler sometimes means abandoning perfectly reasonable (and efficient!) designs just because the compiler doesn't like them. Citation needed!
    - jstimpfle 10y ago
      No.
    - oconnor663 10y ago
      One thing that's hard to do in safe code is getting two &mut references out of a HashMap at the same time. (If you know the keys are disjoint.) That might matter to some design somewhere?
  - lmm 10y ago
    The type corsets of ML-family languages have been the best design experience I've ever had. My programming intuition has got a lot better by using them; it's much easier to spot that there's a subtle issue with the design if it shows up as friction in the types. Even in something like Python the lessons apply, though I have to devote a lot more attention to it since I can't rely on the compiler to show me. Just my subjective experience of course.
    - jstimpfle 10y ago
coolsunglasses 10y ago
Cinch, like cinching up a belt. Synch is short for synchronization.
- nercht12 10y ago
  Oops. Thanks.
niketn 10y ago
This might be a large investment for the engine itself, but minimal investment for the game. In my experience, the largest, buggiest and most complicated parts of a game are all contained within the engine.
solidsnack9000 10y ago
> I'm sure some game developers would rather have an occasional crash they can fix down the road after their game is published than be forced to make a perfect system the first time. > Remember, with game production, it's about time-to-market, not about perfect code. In a way you are over-selling Rust, because it doesn't offer perfect code! I'm not sure why Mozilla would pay to build it if that's what it was about. What it offers is a lower defect rate, which is something you can definitely leverage to improve productivity. Lower defect rate at any cost is clearly too expensive; but developers seem to have been able to absorb the complexity of C++ alright and it Rust can't be called more complex than C++.
- nercht12 10y ago
  To be clear, I didn't say Rust offered perfect code. But supposedly better code comes from Rust, as you're arguing. While Rust as a language isn't more complex, the paradigms are different. Games often have trees and lists, which are a real pain in Rust. To do things right in Rust requires learning new ways of doing things - not something game devs want to spend time on. They've been working with the same horse for years, so they keep riding it.