3 ms·
That's counter productive when it comes to gamedev. Most of the code you write for a game is going to be thrown out at some point. Being able to get the idea on
by pharke 6y ago
That's counter productive when it comes to gamedev. Most of the code you write for a game is going to be thrown out at some point. Being able to get the idea onto the screen and iterate rapidly is worth a lot more than not having a dev build crash after a while. Make it work, make it right, make it fast except the last two are usually transposed in gamedev.
- HelloNurse 6y ago> iterate rapidly is worth a lot more than not having a dev build crash after a while You are missing the part about wasting hours or days to investigate the crash, easily offsetting the time saved with fast and loose coding. It would be nice to see examples to judge whether a stricter language like Rust can save more time on the debugging and fixing side (by reducing mistakes) than it costs with verbose syntax and "unnecessary" safety mechanisms on the design and coding side.
- pharke 6y agoYou only have to debug the code if you're going to keep it. I'm not going to spend days debugging a prototype made of spaghetti, it'll have served its purpose and I'll start over with optimization in mind and refine the idea. If you wanted a programming language that would be a real win for game development you'd choose something that had the option of no type or memory safety and no boilerplate for prototyping with an option to turn those options on for when you actually integrate the feature with the rest of the code.