10 ms·

Haxe sounds too good to be true. Why would anyone use any of the other game engines out there which are targeted towards the mobile world if they could use Haxe

by rufugee 14y ago

Haxe sounds too good to be true. Why would anyone use any of the other game engines out there which are targeted towards the mobile world if they could use Haxe? I see many half-donejavascript frameworks and fully-baked lua frameworks...what do they provide that Haxe doesn't? Can anyone who has done significant Haxe work comment to some of the benefits and drawbacks? I ask as someone in search of a gaming engine which can target iOS and Android, so this is very interesting to me. Thanks.

airfoil 14y ago
I tried a bunch of different game engines, toolkits, frameworks, languages, etc. for the game I'm working on and the thing that sold me on Haxe was NME. I was able to build for Mac and Flash without changing my code. I simply specified a different target platform at the command line. I haven't built for mobile yet, but I suspect there won't be very many changes to my code when I do. Also, the Haxe community is full of great hackers and incredibly helpful.
ido 14y ago
I used haxe for all my games(e.g. http://cardinalquest.com/ http://cardinalquest.com/) for over a year now & it's working quite well. There are some annoying differences between the different targets but it's >99% the same and you can work around the differences.
- joering2 14y ago
  Cardinal Quest looks very cool. Could you share some light from business perspective. Profits? Thanks.
  - ido 14y ago
    Revenue is mid 5 figure so far from desktop and flash versions, the ios & android version were just released but I'm hoping to break into 6 figures altogether across the game's total lifespan.
    - zura 14y ago
      May I ask you regarding the percentages you get from the desktop Linux vs Win vs MacOSX sales?
      - ido 14y ago
        I don't collect these stats, although probably should. From web visitors it's 70% win, 20% mac, 10% linux.
    - aerique 14y ago
      Did you use Haxe for the iOS and Android versions as well? It wasn't quite there yet when I checked it out a couple of years ago.
      - ido 14y ago
        Yep, all from the same code base.
        aerique 14y ago
        Thanks, I'll go and play with Haxe again then!
azakai 14y ago
> Why would anyone use any of the other game engines out there which are targeted towards the mobile world if they could use Haxe? Haxe isn't a game engine. It's a language that compiles into other languages.
- Drakim 14y ago
  Not entirely true, it depends on the platform. While compiling to JavaScript obviously results in JavaScript code (which is what the browser can understand), but compiling to Flash does not compile to ActionScript 3 and then the flash assembly (the .swf file). It goes straight from HaXe to the flash assembly. Likewise, the Java target (which is still in development) won't merely translate HaXe into Java and then compile that Java. I've seen solutions like that and it's not fast or elegant.
  - azakai 14y ago
    Yes, but the point was that haXe is not a game engine.
    - rufugee 14y ago
      But it has a physics engine, a canvas, etc. I'm not a game developer (yet ;-) ), so I'm curious...what defines a game engine in your mind? What is haxe lacking? Thanks.
      - azakai 14y ago
        First, haXe describes itself as a programming language. Second, I don't see a mention of a physics engine builtin to haXe anywhere on the features page, http://haxe.org/doc/features http://haxe.org/doc/features where are you seeing that?
        rufugee 14y ago
        You're correct. I saw this earlier, but apparently it's not included in Haxe core: http://haxe.org/com/libs/physaxe http://haxe.org/com/libs/physaxe
jdonaldson 14y ago
First, a distinction between frameworks and languages... Framework benefits include rapid development, and familiarity (since they use preexisting languages). The cost is that performance will never be as good as native code, and you won't be able to easily change certain behaviors. The Haxe language gives you far more flexibility and performance optimizations, since it is generating optimized native source or byte code. The cost is that you have to learn the Haxe language. Many people on this discussion are criticizing the java-style syntax of Haxe. I think most of these negative feelings are due to the excessive boilerplate required for many Java classes. Haxe does away with a lot of boilerplate code using type inference and other modern compiler techniques. http://haxe.org/ref/type_infer http://haxe.org/ref/type_infer You can remove even more boilerplate with macro libraries for shorthand class declarations: https://github.com/back2dos/tinkerbell/wiki/tink_lang https://github.com/back2dos/tinkerbell/wiki/tink_lang There are many other tricks you can use to define behavior without resorting to complex inheritance or class definitions. One of my favorites is the "using" declaration: http://haxe.org/manual/using http://haxe.org/manual/using So, in my opinion, the cost of learning Haxe is very low if you already know Java or Actionscript. The cost of coding/writing Haxe is also very low, since you're not required to write boilerplate code. Finally, it's worth mentioning that the Haxe developers are not just trying to gloss over the technicalities of each underlying platform in order to get things working. They really understand the behavior of each platform, and make many conscientious decisions based on considerations for performance and cross-platform consistency. I've learned more from the Haxe language google group about each target (js quirks, java limitations, etc.) than I have from the Java, JS, Actionscript groups themselves: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/haxelang https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/haxelang Many people have remarked that simply following the Haxe development list has made them a better programmer.
chipsy 14y ago
I made a soft-synthesis and MIDI playback engine in Haxe targeting Flash: http://www.ludamix.com/apps/triad-synth/index.html http://www.ludamix.com/apps/triad-synth/index.html Haven't done an official port yet, but one of the NME devs did look into using it to test the SampleDataEvent API on other targets. I did get it compiling but not running, so the ports probably won't be a huge project. I like a lot of things about Haxe. The syntax is more streamlined than traditional curly-bracers. The type system can massively help with refactoring. It's "honest" about the limitations of targets - you get the APIs pretty much exactly as they are on the target itself. The compiler is well-implemented and updated all the time. It's just a very productive environment, and although it used to have lots of maturity/ecosystem issues, increasingly those aren't a major hurdle, at least for the game space.
rotation1 14y ago
A problem I have had with these frameworks is that they all sound great on the surface but when you start using them you run into issues or missing features that are important to you and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it. Haxe does look great and for this particular case I wonder how Haxe NME's performance compares to the lua frameworks like Corona and Gideros for mobile development specifically.
- singmajesty 14y ago
  Last I compared against Corona, NME was getting 7 times the performance.

by rufugee 14y ago

airfoil 14y ago

I tried a bunch of different game engines, toolkits, frameworks, languages, etc. for the game I'm working on and the thing that sold me on Haxe was NME. I was able to build for Mac and Flash without changing my code. I simply specified a different target platform at the command line. I haven't built for mobile yet, but I suspect there won't be very many changes to my code when I do. Also, the Haxe community is full of great hackers and incredibly helpful.

ido 14y ago

I used haxe for all my games(e.g. http://cardinalquest.com/ http://cardinalquest.com/) for over a year now & it's working quite well. There are some annoying differences between the different targets but it's >99% the same and you can work around the differences.

joering2 14y ago
Cardinal Quest looks very cool. Could you share some light from business perspective. Profits? Thanks.
- ido 14y ago
  Revenue is mid 5 figure so far from desktop and flash versions, the ios & android version were just released but I'm hoping to break into 6 figures altogether across the game's total lifespan.
  - zura 14y ago
    May I ask you regarding the percentages you get from the desktop Linux vs Win vs MacOSX sales?
    - ido 14y ago
      I don't collect these stats, although probably should. From web visitors it's 70% win, 20% mac, 10% linux.
  - aerique 14y ago
    Did you use Haxe for the iOS and Android versions as well? It wasn't quite there yet when I checked it out a couple of years ago.
    - ido 14y ago
      Yep, all from the same code base.
      - aerique 14y ago
        Thanks, I'll go and play with Haxe again then!

azakai 14y ago

> Why would anyone use any of the other game engines out there which are targeted towards the mobile world if they could use Haxe? Haxe isn't a game engine. It's a language that compiles into other languages.

Drakim 14y ago
Not entirely true, it depends on the platform. While compiling to JavaScript obviously results in JavaScript code (which is what the browser can understand), but compiling to Flash does not compile to ActionScript 3 and then the flash assembly (the .swf file). It goes straight from HaXe to the flash assembly. Likewise, the Java target (which is still in development) won't merely translate HaXe into Java and then compile that Java. I've seen solutions like that and it's not fast or elegant.
- azakai 14y ago
  Yes, but the point was that haXe is not a game engine.
  - rufugee 14y ago
    But it has a physics engine, a canvas, etc. I'm not a game developer (yet ;-) ), so I'm curious...what defines a game engine in your mind? What is haxe lacking? Thanks.
    - azakai 14y ago
      First, haXe describes itself as a programming language. Second, I don't see a mention of a physics engine builtin to haXe anywhere on the features page, http://haxe.org/doc/features http://haxe.org/doc/features where are you seeing that?
      - rufugee 14y ago
        You're correct. I saw this earlier, but apparently it's not included in Haxe core: http://haxe.org/com/libs/physaxe http://haxe.org/com/libs/physaxe

jdonaldson 14y ago

First, a distinction between frameworks and languages... Framework benefits include rapid development, and familiarity (since they use preexisting languages). The cost is that performance will never be as good as native code, and you won't be able to easily change certain behaviors. The Haxe language gives you far more flexibility and performance optimizations, since it is generating optimized native source or byte code. The cost is that you have to learn the Haxe language. Many people on this discussion are criticizing the java-style syntax of Haxe. I think most of these negative feelings are due to the excessive boilerplate required for many Java classes. Haxe does away with a lot of boilerplate code using type inference and other modern compiler techniques. http://haxe.org/ref/type_infer http://haxe.org/ref/type_infer You can remove even more boilerplate with macro libraries for shorthand class declarations: https://github.com/back2dos/tinkerbell/wiki/tink_lang https://github.com/back2dos/tinkerbell/wiki/tink_lang There are many other tricks you can use to define behavior without resorting to complex inheritance or class definitions. One of my favorites is the "using" declaration: http://haxe.org/manual/using http://haxe.org/manual/using So, in my opinion, the cost of learning Haxe is very low if you already know Java or Actionscript. The cost of coding/writing Haxe is also very low, since you're not required to write boilerplate code. Finally, it's worth mentioning that the Haxe developers are not just trying to gloss over the technicalities of each underlying platform in order to get things working. They really understand the behavior of each platform, and make many conscientious decisions based on considerations for performance and cross-platform consistency. I've learned more from the Haxe language google group about each target (js quirks, java limitations, etc.) than I have from the Java, JS, Actionscript groups themselves: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/haxelang https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/haxelang Many people have remarked that simply following the Haxe development list has made them a better programmer.

chipsy 14y ago

I made a soft-synthesis and MIDI playback engine in Haxe targeting Flash: http://www.ludamix.com/apps/triad-synth/index.html http://www.ludamix.com/apps/triad-synth/index.html Haven't done an official port yet, but one of the NME devs did look into using it to test the SampleDataEvent API on other targets. I did get it compiling but not running, so the ports probably won't be a huge project. I like a lot of things about Haxe. The syntax is more streamlined than traditional curly-bracers. The type system can massively help with refactoring. It's "honest" about the limitations of targets - you get the APIs pretty much exactly as they are on the target itself. The compiler is well-implemented and updated all the time. It's just a very productive environment, and although it used to have lots of maturity/ecosystem issues, increasingly those aren't a major hurdle, at least for the game space.

rotation1 14y ago

A problem I have had with these frameworks is that they all sound great on the surface but when you start using them you run into issues or missing features that are important to you and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it. Haxe does look great and for this particular case I wonder how Haxe NME's performance compares to the lua frameworks like Corona and Gideros for mobile development specifically.

singmajesty 14y ago
Last I compared against Corona, NME was getting 7 times the performance.