5 ms·

I am not, but C++ does not provide any abstractions that would be helpful for a DOS-like game that "someone who has enough knowledge to make a project in C++17

by Crinus 7y ago

I am not, but C++ does not provide any abstractions that would be helpful for a DOS-like game that "someone who has enough knowledge to make a project in C++17 like a game" cannot do (also remember the context in the original message was about stuff made decades ago being made today, not modern AAA engines). Even if you take out the possibility of grabbing something like SGLIB, the two most common data structures in a game you'll need are lists and dynamic arrays and you can create a generic header for both in an hour. What sort of abstractions does C++17 enable that you think are useful for creating a 2D sidescrolling platformer (or anything other decades old game) that are so empowering compared to C to sidestep C++17's deficiencies?

blub 7y ago
C doesn't provide any abstractions period... there is no such thing as a list or dynamic array in C, at best one can build a leaky abstraction based on structs and pointers with almost zero type safety. Case in point, the SGLIB you mentioned, which uses the same old macro tricks from decades ago. Anything is better than C at providing abstractions for building games, because any language offers more than procedures, crude arrays and structs. C++, Rust, C#, Python, Java, Swift, etc. All of these would run circles around C for almost any kind of possible project.
- Crinus 7y ago
  > there is no such thing as a list or dynamic array in C, at best one can build a leaky abstraction based on structs and pointers with almost zero type safety First of all, type safety is not necessary to create something fast which is what the original comment was all about and everything i'm writing is in the context of mmoez writing how modern tools enable individuals to do work that decades ago would need entire teams and my reply to that was that this applies to some types of tools and someone who knows C++17 enough to make such a game like those made decades ago wont gain implementation speed from the language itself as opposed using something like C89. I repeat this context because i have a feeling from your replies that you are taking my comments out of it. Second, you can use the preprocessor to create type safe lists, dynamic arrays, etc. In fact SGLIB does exactly that, this is why you pass a type to the macros that declares your list types and functions. But outside of SGLIB's approach you can also use include files as templates with parameters passed outside of it. Here is an example i wrote some weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19879059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19879059 This creates types and functions based on the parameters you give to the header. > Anything is better than C at providing abstractions for building games, because any language offers more than procedures, crude arrays and structs. Also a somewhat decent macro system, but so does C++. However i never argued that C is good at providing abstractions (as i show above you can, but it can be a PITA). C++ and some other languages are better than that, sure. What i argued about is that those abstractions will not cause someone who has enough knowledge to write a game like the one submitted here in C++17 to make it "that would need teams decades ago" faster than if he'd used something like C89. In other words, considering the type of project we're discussing about, even if he gains any speed, it'd be minimal.
  - fooker 7y ago
    All that versus a vector<int> , unordered_map<string, Foo> :)

by Crinus 7y ago

blub 7y ago

C doesn't provide any abstractions period... there is no such thing as a list or dynamic array in C, at best one can build a leaky abstraction based on structs and pointers with almost zero type safety. Case in point, the SGLIB you mentioned, which uses the same old macro tricks from decades ago. Anything is better than C at providing abstractions for building games, because any language offers more than procedures, crude arrays and structs. C++, Rust, C#, Python, Java, Swift, etc. All of these would run circles around C for almost any kind of possible project.

Crinus 7y ago
> there is no such thing as a list or dynamic array in C, at best one can build a leaky abstraction based on structs and pointers with almost zero type safety First of all, type safety is not necessary to create something fast which is what the original comment was all about and everything i'm writing is in the context of mmoez writing how modern tools enable individuals to do work that decades ago would need entire teams and my reply to that was that this applies to some types of tools and someone who knows C++17 enough to make such a game like those made decades ago wont gain implementation speed from the language itself as opposed using something like C89. I repeat this context because i have a feeling from your replies that you are taking my comments out of it. Second, you can use the preprocessor to create type safe lists, dynamic arrays, etc. In fact SGLIB does exactly that, this is why you pass a type to the macros that declares your list types and functions. But outside of SGLIB's approach you can also use include files as templates with parameters passed outside of it. Here is an example i wrote some weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19879059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19879059 This creates types and functions based on the parameters you give to the header. > Anything is better than C at providing abstractions for building games, because any language offers more than procedures, crude arrays and structs. Also a somewhat decent macro system, but so does C++. However i never argued that C is good at providing abstractions (as i show above you can, but it can be a PITA). C++ and some other languages are better than that, sure. What i argued about is that those abstractions will not cause someone who has enough knowledge to write a game like the one submitted here in C++17 to make it "that would need teams decades ago" faster than if he'd used something like C89. In other words, considering the type of project we're discussing about, even if he gains any speed, it'd be minimal.
- fooker 7y ago
  All that versus a vector<int> , unordered_map<string, Foo> :)