4 ms·

Maybe it just means that Mono is much more well suited for games and embedded usage. Which arguably is the case.

dextorious 15y ago
Only we're not discussing Mono vs JVM here. We're discussing VM vs non-VM languages. So if Mono (a VM language) can do fine in 3D games usage, it proves that nice 3D performance is not incompatible with a VM language --which is what the parent suggested, bringing up Java 3D performance as an example.
- Retric 15y ago
  Mono VM just demonstrates my point. You can use it to make games with that would have had reasonable graphics 7 years ago but no so much today. EX: http://www.unearthedgame.com/ http://www.unearthedgame.com/ which is around Half Life 2 graphics which came out in 2004. http://store.steampowered.com/video/220/904 http://store.steampowered.com/video/220/904 Feel free to look for a better example from: http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list And again I am talking about headroom, it does not take state of the art graphics to make a great game, but it does take a non VM language for the graphics subsystem. PS: Computers are FAST my cellphone would crush multimillion dollar super computers when I was in high school. So, generally trading speed for nicety's like virtual memory is well worth it. However, that does not mean we are avoiding the tradeoffs just accepting them with open arms.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """Mono VM just demonstrates my point. You can use it to make games with that would have had reasonable graphics 7 years ago but no so much today.""" Native C/C++ will always be better for games than anything else. We are not discussing that. For one, I actually think most of those game examples are fine, and better that whatever Dart will attain. For use inside a web browser those are perfectly fine. It's not like Dart will magically give you something better than WebGL, which is already hardware accelerated anyway...

Only we're not discussing Mono vs JVM here. We're discussing VM vs non-VM languages. So if Mono (a VM language) can do fine in 3D games usage, it proves that nice 3D performance is not incompatible with a VM language --which is what the parent suggested, bringing up Java 3D performance as an example.

Retric 15y ago
Mono VM just demonstrates my point. You can use it to make games with that would have had reasonable graphics 7 years ago but no so much today. EX: http://www.unearthedgame.com/ http://www.unearthedgame.com/ which is around Half Life 2 graphics which came out in 2004. http://store.steampowered.com/video/220/904 http://store.steampowered.com/video/220/904 Feel free to look for a better example from: http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list And again I am talking about headroom, it does not take state of the art graphics to make a great game, but it does take a non VM language for the graphics subsystem. PS: Computers are FAST my cellphone would crush multimillion dollar super computers when I was in high school. So, generally trading speed for nicety's like virtual memory is well worth it. However, that does not mean we are avoiding the tradeoffs just accepting them with open arms.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Mono VM just demonstrates my point. You can use it to make games with that would have had reasonable graphics 7 years ago but no so much today.""" Native C/C++ will always be better for games than anything else. We are not discussing that. For one, I actually think most of those game examples are fine, and better that whatever Dart will attain. For use inside a web browser those are perfectly fine. It's not like Dart will magically give you something better than WebGL, which is already hardware accelerated anyway...