> One of the most infuriating things about Unity is they tend to deprecate/stop maintaining working things even though the replacement is still in preview and/o

> One of the most infuriating things about Unity is they tend to deprecate/stop maintaining working things even though the replacement is still in preview and/or not ready. A.k.a. life as a software engineer at Google. I've found that this is just such a common experience, not just with Unity, but everywhere. I think the real problem with Unity is that it's hard to get good guidance about whether to choose the new/experimental path or the old/deprecated path. There are random packages (ProGrids? New input system?) that are marked experimental but ready for production use except the documentation is not as good as it should be. Then there's stuff like DOTS, which is much harder to use in production. > Also, while I'm generally a fan of C#, I think it was somewhat of a poor choice for games. This is more of an implementation quality issue than a language design problem. Unity was stuck on an old version of Mono for a long time, for a licensing reason or something like that. I'm aware that newer C# versions have much better GC performance, but it's not something I have personal experience with.