4 ms·

This is a really interesting list, thank you for replying! (the following are entirely undirected musings on using your technology for my game engine, mostly i

This is a really interesting list, thank you for replying! (the following are entirely undirected musings on using your technology for my game engine, mostly in case anyone finds them interesting or has something to suggest that I haven't thought of since I'm new at this) At least for my use case C, Zig, Rust, and even probably Nim are out of the question because I'm not just using scripting for sandboxing capabilities and such, I'm also using it because I want people to be able to program games and write mods in a high-level language, so using a systems programming language as my scripting language kind of feels like it defeats part of the purpose and I might as well just use dynamic linking with a C ABI or something crazy like that (I'm new to this so excuse me if that's nonsense lol). JavaScript and Kotlin are intriguing though, because they aren't systems programming languages, so I'll have to think long and hard about those; I've been considering C# for scripting lately (because I like it well enough, it's widespread, and known in the gaming world) and I wonder if you can get natively aot compiled Kotlin to work, if you could get natively aot compiled C# to work too... there would probably be similar complications due to the large and complex runtime, but I know you can strip it down so I wonder how that might play in. I also wonder what the performance would be like compared to just hosting the dotnet runtime, which is what I was intending to do before I saw your post. Maybe at some point I should set up a benchmark to compare! Although I have to say the pre-compilation thing is a bit of a deal-breaker for me, since I really want people to be able to put plain text things directly in the game folder and see those changes in the engine without having to do any kind of build process, which is something that is achievable with the regular dotnet runtime using a precompiled assembly bootstraps the rest of the sctipts using dynamic assembly compilation and loading to collect everything else in the script directory.

fwsgonzo 3y ago
Hm, if you don't actually need a sandbox then I think just using the C# run-time makes a lot of sense. I also like C#, but I've never been in a situation to try the fairly new AOT support. Sounds like a good idea, though. C# is a very good language.
- brucehoult 3y ago
  C# runtime is HUGE and not ported to everything. The compilation step to native code takes a significant amount of time.
  - logicprog 3y ago
    Good to know. That solidifies my plan to embed the dotnet runtime in my engine and load JIT code, not compile C# to AOT and then run that through an emulation layer
  - Rohansi 3y ago
    Do you mean compiling the .NET runtime (CoreCLR) itself or AOT compiling C# code? Because I recently tried AOT compiled C# and that builds quickly. And you don't generally need to compile the .NET runtime when embedding it because you can just load the builds they ship.
    - brucehoult 3y ago
      Simply running a DotNET dll. I just tried a basic "Hello World" program compiled to a CIL .dll and to RV64 machine code, on my x86 Linux machine (original ThreadRipper 2990WX) and then running it through different JIT/interpreters. Wall time: DotNET: 0.061s qemu-riscv64: 0.006s Spike: 0.031s Qemu is JIT with Linux syscall layer built in (in native code). Spike is a RISC-V interpreter with Linux syscall layer provided by interpreted RISC-V "pk" So the DotNET JIT has quite a high overhead for startup, or one-time code. For very compute-intensive code DotNet has an advantage. e.g. on my own primes benchmark (https://hoult.org/primes.txt https://hoult.org/primes.txt, https://hoult.org/primes.cs https://hoult.org/primes.cs) DotNET: 3.5s qemu-riscv64: 10.2s gcc: 9.7s (i.e. defaulting to -O0) gcc -O1: 3.2s DotNET beats emulated RISC-V here, but the RISC-V emulator (with RISC-V code compiled with -O1) is pretty much as fast as a lazy person compiling C to native x86 gets.
      - Rohansi 3y ago
        Oh, so you meant startup time for the runtime, JIT, etc. then. That's not exactly relevant to usage in game engines here because it is only done once. If you want to compare startup times you should be using .NET's AOT compilation so it doesn't need to load the full runtime or do any JIT compilation. See here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/native-aot/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

fwsgonzo 3y ago

Hm, if you don't actually need a sandbox then I think just using the C# run-time makes a lot of sense. I also like C#, but I've never been in a situation to try the fairly new AOT support. Sounds like a good idea, though. C# is a very good language.

brucehoult 3y ago
C# runtime is HUGE and not ported to everything. The compilation step to native code takes a significant amount of time.
- logicprog 3y ago
  Good to know. That solidifies my plan to embed the dotnet runtime in my engine and load JIT code, not compile C# to AOT and then run that through an emulation layer
- Rohansi 3y ago
  Do you mean compiling the .NET runtime (CoreCLR) itself or AOT compiling C# code? Because I recently tried AOT compiled C# and that builds quickly. And you don't generally need to compile the .NET runtime when embedding it because you can just load the builds they ship.
  - brucehoult 3y ago
    Simply running a DotNET dll. I just tried a basic "Hello World" program compiled to a CIL .dll and to RV64 machine code, on my x86 Linux machine (original ThreadRipper 2990WX) and then running it through different JIT/interpreters. Wall time: DotNET: 0.061s qemu-riscv64: 0.006s Spike: 0.031s Qemu is JIT with Linux syscall layer built in (in native code). Spike is a RISC-V interpreter with Linux syscall layer provided by interpreted RISC-V "pk" So the DotNET JIT has quite a high overhead for startup, or one-time code. For very compute-intensive code DotNet has an advantage. e.g. on my own primes benchmark (https://hoult.org/primes.txt https://hoult.org/primes.txt, https://hoult.org/primes.cs https://hoult.org/primes.cs) DotNET: 3.5s qemu-riscv64: 10.2s gcc: 9.7s (i.e. defaulting to -O0) gcc -O1: 3.2s DotNET beats emulated RISC-V here, but the RISC-V emulator (with RISC-V code compiled with -O1) is pretty much as fast as a lazy person compiling C to native x86 gets.
    - Rohansi 3y ago
      Oh, so you meant startup time for the runtime, JIT, etc. then. That's not exactly relevant to usage in game engines here because it is only done once. If you want to compare startup times you should be using .NET's AOT compilation so it doesn't need to load the full runtime or do any JIT compilation. See here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/native-aot/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...