4 ms·

> This is almost certainly not the PC version of the game, which does run Java. The Switch would probably not be capable of running 4 instances of the at 720p 6

> This is almost certainly not the PC version of the game, which does run Java. The Switch would probably not be capable of running 4 instances of the at 720p 60fps. Though I might just be misreading you, the PC version probably isn't slow because it's Java, it's just poorly written.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
Only a little. I was going to write that it was a different version because the updated versions have been frequently ported to new platforms, but that's not proof, they might have changed their pattern. And while the new codebase seems more portable and flexible, there's no reason the Switch couldn't be made to run Java. The proof is that while the Java version runs acceptably on a modern PC - which is all it needs to do - a PC with the performance of the Switch would not be capable of this performance level. Instead, the Pocket edition running on phones would be closer to this performance. (Also, you might be misreading me because I forgot "PC version" between "the" and "at 720p".)
andrepd 10y ago
It has been acquired for 2 billion dollars, it has had 8 years in which to clean up and optimize that code. Either the all the people working in it are very incompetent or it's actually Java to blame :^)
- tuxracer 10y ago
  2 billion dollars and 8 years hasn't even gone into such an effort though. The complete rewrite which serves as the codebase for the xbox, iOS, etc.. version is where the majority of that time, money, and effort has been spent. The mobile and console markets were apparently seen as as a much more lucrative use of time and effort vs optimizing the legacy desktop-only Java version which the author himself agrees was poorly written.
oneweekwonder 10y ago
> the PC version probably isn't slow because it's Java, it's just poorly written. Maybe the initial java code base, but like someone said they had 8 years and enough resources to rectify the issue. Do you have any recent info to back your claim?
- khedoros1 10y ago
  I've got a slow-ish machine running Windows 10 (4GB RAM, Intel GPU, Atom-descended quad-core Celeron). The Java version of Minecraft runs at maybe 2-5 FPS. I wouldn't call the Windows Store version "smooth", but it's probably closer to 10-20 FPS, with the same distance settings. For the sake of argument, I'd be willing to assume that Java code is slower than (say) the equivalent natively-compiled code, but probably not anything close to 5x slower. Maybe there are some different features that make one slower than the other? I don't know. I just know that the Java version is slower, and that the difference in language probably isn't enough to account for it. Difference in features and difference in quality of implementation are the two possibilities that stick out in my mind as culprits for the difference in performance.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

Only a little. I was going to write that it was a different version because the updated versions have been frequently ported to new platforms, but that's not proof, they might have changed their pattern. And while the new codebase seems more portable and flexible, there's no reason the Switch couldn't be made to run Java. The proof is that while the Java version runs acceptably on a modern PC - which is all it needs to do - a PC with the performance of the Switch would not be capable of this performance level. Instead, the Pocket edition running on phones would be closer to this performance. (Also, you might be misreading me because I forgot "PC version" between "the" and "at 720p".)

andrepd 10y ago

It has been acquired for 2 billion dollars, it has had 8 years in which to clean up and optimize that code. Either the all the people working in it are very incompetent or it's actually Java to blame :^)

tuxracer 10y ago
2 billion dollars and 8 years hasn't even gone into such an effort though. The complete rewrite which serves as the codebase for the xbox, iOS, etc.. version is where the majority of that time, money, and effort has been spent. The mobile and console markets were apparently seen as as a much more lucrative use of time and effort vs optimizing the legacy desktop-only Java version which the author himself agrees was poorly written.

oneweekwonder 10y ago

> the PC version probably isn't slow because it's Java, it's just poorly written. Maybe the initial java code base, but like someone said they had 8 years and enough resources to rectify the issue. Do you have any recent info to back your claim?

khedoros1 10y ago
I've got a slow-ish machine running Windows 10 (4GB RAM, Intel GPU, Atom-descended quad-core Celeron). The Java version of Minecraft runs at maybe 2-5 FPS. I wouldn't call the Windows Store version "smooth", but it's probably closer to 10-20 FPS, with the same distance settings. For the sake of argument, I'd be willing to assume that Java code is slower than (say) the equivalent natively-compiled code, but probably not anything close to 5x slower. Maybe there are some different features that make one slower than the other? I don't know. I just know that the Java version is slower, and that the difference in language probably isn't enough to account for it. Difference in features and difference in quality of implementation are the two possibilities that stick out in my mind as culprits for the difference in performance.