8 ms·

Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in

by CamTin 9y ago

Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages took a big bite out of C/C++ usage starting in the 90s, I think we're seeing another couple use-case for C/C++ pull off: 1) stuff that is performance sensitive but security sensitive as well (Rust) 2) stuff that is soooo performance sensitive that Rust and C++ are actually too bloated, but which isn't really security sensitive so the guarantees that Rust/Modern C++ offer aren't worth it (Jai, Blow's language). Category 1 is clearly real, but Category 2 might be too small to sustain itself (though Blow makes an economic argument that it would be worth it). Are we just going to keep peeling back C/C++ users from the pack with more specifically-useful languages until there are none left except for those maintaining legacy code? Or are there use-cases where C++ will continue to make sense? I guess a lot of this depends on whether or not we can meaningfully "modernize" C++ through the standards process without simply bolting on a lot more features that add to the bloat. I wouldn't wager much that this trick can be pulled off.

vvanders 9y ago
As Ex-Gamedev I don't buy that #2 is too bloated for C++, you just have to be smart about what features you pick. Really though for what he wants to do you want a flexible framework(scripting language) backed by a fast engine(native). Jai sounds pretty interesting but I don't know if Blow has the interest in building an ecosystem around it or just using it for his own projects. FWIW my ideal use case is Lua + Rust. I've done it on a few projects so far and really love the combo of flex + stability.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Agreed The only case I see for "C++ is too bloated" is for embedded apps on limited hardware and even then But then of course people make something that's 10 inheritance levels deep and (ab)uses templates and then suddenly "C++ is slow". Write better code
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    C++ has done a pretty good job of maintaining the ideal that "you don't pay for what you don't use". Your C++ is too slow? Think carefully about which features you're using. If you choose features appropriately (given that speed is your top concern), and you still find that another language is faster, I'd be quite surprised.
mattnewport 9y ago
I went back and forth over email with Jonathan Blow a while back and my opinion is that C++ is moving in a direction where it addresses most of his concerns about its suitability for game programming, though he doesn't agree. I wrote a few blog posts elaborating on why, starting with: http://blog.mattnewport.com/why-c17-is-the-new-programming-language-for-games-i-want/ http://blog.mattnewport.com/why-c17-is-the-new-programming-l... I should revisit the topic in light of the latest progress with C++ and to correct some errors in those posts but I continue to believe that C++ is getting better as a language for games. There is a somewhat legitimate argument that C++ is too complex but I don't believe you can make a convincing case that it justifies creating a whole new language (which will inevitably come with its own quirks, idiosyncracies and complexities) rather than engaging with the development of C++ itself.
- interestingcpp 9y ago
  Interesting; i think it’s fairly clear by now engaging with C++ is not going to lead to reduced complexity at all. When was the last time it removed support for a feature? That’s not what the language needs because it’s more interested in preserving existing code bases than it is at improving them (the latter being a huge effort, truly massive, so i understand the decision and don’t mean it as a slight in the least).
  - mattnewport 9y ago
    Major influential figures in the C++ community (notably Bjarne Stroustrup and Herb Sutter) are very explicit about having a goal of simplifying everyday usage of C++ (make simple things simple). Watch any of Bjarne's talks over the last few years to see this is one of his main focuses. It's also recognized that backwards compatibility / not breaking existing code are very important however. Yes, that's a hard set of requirements to meet but I find it bizarre when I keep seeing people state that the C++ standards committee and the community in general don't care about simplicity and ease of use when those are literally the major topics of keynotes at every C++ conference of the last few years.
    - 9y ago
make3 9y ago
I'm suspicious about your so called (runtime) slow bloat. learning/understanding bloat, sure, compile time bloat, sure. But execution wise? I would like examples, specifically some that could not be dodged in a trivial manner
CyberDildonics 9y ago
> 2) stuff that is soooo performance sensitive that Rust and C++ are actually too bloated, but which isn't really security sensitive so the guarantees that Rust/Modern C++ offer aren't worth it (Jai, Blow' If you expect Jai to be faster than C++ I think you will end up disappointed. There isn't much reason there should be any more performance disparity than Clang and a different C++ compiler. The only language that I think could be really be called faster than C++ is ISPC.
kibwen 9y ago
I don't think this is specifically a C++ problem, I think it's a problem for any language which tries to be generalist and encompass many use cases without finding a well-defined niche. Namely, the compromises that a language makes in order to appease wildly divergent use cases will make it less than optimal at many of them, and if demand is high enough for any one of those use cases, then a different language that is custom-tailored for that use case will start to find a foothold. I think of it like bicycling: one could use the same bike for commuting, road racing, mountain biking, and BMX, and you'd certainly save room in your garage, but most people do not need to do all four of those activities and will instead invest in bikes that make tradeoffs to excel in the use cases that they actually care about.
- mattnewport 9y ago
  C++ design principles are already a good match for game development however. Specifically its intent to leave no room for a lower level language (except assembly) and to provide zero cost abstractions. There are lots of things C++ doesn't try to be and the are lots of languages more popular in particular domains as a result. C++ dominates game development (and particularly game engine development) because it is the best available match to the needs of that domain. It continues to try and evolve to match those needs better (that's why there's a game development focused study group SG14 on the standards committee, show me another language that takes the needs of game developers that seriously).
steveklabnik 9y ago
From the Rust perspective, there should be no time when Rust is too “bloated” for performance. That’s clearly an ideal but if there are specifics I’d love to hear about them. We endeavor to not ever leave performance on the table.

by CamTin 9y ago

vvanders 9y ago

As Ex-Gamedev I don't buy that #2 is too bloated for C++, you just have to be smart about what features you pick. Really though for what he wants to do you want a flexible framework(scripting language) backed by a fast engine(native). Jai sounds pretty interesting but I don't know if Blow has the interest in building an ecosystem around it or just using it for his own projects. FWIW my ideal use case is Lua + Rust. I've done it on a few projects so far and really love the combo of flex + stability.

raverbashing 9y ago
Agreed The only case I see for "C++ is too bloated" is for embedded apps on limited hardware and even then But then of course people make something that's 10 inheritance levels deep and (ab)uses templates and then suddenly "C++ is slow". Write better code
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  C++ has done a pretty good job of maintaining the ideal that "you don't pay for what you don't use". Your C++ is too slow? Think carefully about which features you're using. If you choose features appropriately (given that speed is your top concern), and you still find that another language is faster, I'd be quite surprised.

mattnewport 9y ago

I went back and forth over email with Jonathan Blow a while back and my opinion is that C++ is moving in a direction where it addresses most of his concerns about its suitability for game programming, though he doesn't agree. I wrote a few blog posts elaborating on why, starting with: http://blog.mattnewport.com/why-c17-is-the-new-programming-language-for-games-i-want/ http://blog.mattnewport.com/why-c17-is-the-new-programming-l... I should revisit the topic in light of the latest progress with C++ and to correct some errors in those posts but I continue to believe that C++ is getting better as a language for games. There is a somewhat legitimate argument that C++ is too complex but I don't believe you can make a convincing case that it justifies creating a whole new language (which will inevitably come with its own quirks, idiosyncracies and complexities) rather than engaging with the development of C++ itself.

interestingcpp 9y ago
Interesting; i think it’s fairly clear by now engaging with C++ is not going to lead to reduced complexity at all. When was the last time it removed support for a feature? That’s not what the language needs because it’s more interested in preserving existing code bases than it is at improving them (the latter being a huge effort, truly massive, so i understand the decision and don’t mean it as a slight in the least).
- mattnewport 9y ago
  Major influential figures in the C++ community (notably Bjarne Stroustrup and Herb Sutter) are very explicit about having a goal of simplifying everyday usage of C++ (make simple things simple). Watch any of Bjarne's talks over the last few years to see this is one of his main focuses. It's also recognized that backwards compatibility / not breaking existing code are very important however. Yes, that's a hard set of requirements to meet but I find it bizarre when I keep seeing people state that the C++ standards committee and the community in general don't care about simplicity and ease of use when those are literally the major topics of keynotes at every C++ conference of the last few years.
  - 9y ago

make3 9y ago

I'm suspicious about your so called (runtime) slow bloat. learning/understanding bloat, sure, compile time bloat, sure. But execution wise? I would like examples, specifically some that could not be dodged in a trivial manner

CyberDildonics 9y ago

> 2) stuff that is soooo performance sensitive that Rust and C++ are actually too bloated, but which isn't really security sensitive so the guarantees that Rust/Modern C++ offer aren't worth it (Jai, Blow' If you expect Jai to be faster than C++ I think you will end up disappointed. There isn't much reason there should be any more performance disparity than Clang and a different C++ compiler. The only language that I think could be really be called faster than C++ is ISPC.

kibwen 9y ago

I don't think this is specifically a C++ problem, I think it's a problem for any language which tries to be generalist and encompass many use cases without finding a well-defined niche. Namely, the compromises that a language makes in order to appease wildly divergent use cases will make it less than optimal at many of them, and if demand is high enough for any one of those use cases, then a different language that is custom-tailored for that use case will start to find a foothold. I think of it like bicycling: one could use the same bike for commuting, road racing, mountain biking, and BMX, and you'd certainly save room in your garage, but most people do not need to do all four of those activities and will instead invest in bikes that make tradeoffs to excel in the use cases that they actually care about.

mattnewport 9y ago
C++ design principles are already a good match for game development however. Specifically its intent to leave no room for a lower level language (except assembly) and to provide zero cost abstractions. There are lots of things C++ doesn't try to be and the are lots of languages more popular in particular domains as a result. C++ dominates game development (and particularly game engine development) because it is the best available match to the needs of that domain. It continues to try and evolve to match those needs better (that's why there's a game development focused study group SG14 on the standards committee, show me another language that takes the needs of game developers that seriously).

steveklabnik 9y ago

From the Rust perspective, there should be no time when Rust is too “bloated” for performance. That’s clearly an ideal but if there are specifics I’d love to hear about them. We endeavor to not ever leave performance on the table.