I’ve seen that some people think that the GC in C# is an/the advantage over C++.
You do know that there are GC(s) for C++ don’t you? There are actually quiet a lot of them, and they work well, but programmers tend not to use them.
If you want faster programs write em in assembler, or at least C
why is c# better for game development than c++(you can be vague)
quote:Original post by Calexus
You do know that there are GC(s) for C++ don’t you? There are actually quiet a lot of them
I''m sure you can provide us with a list, then.
quote:
and they work well, but programmers tend not to use them.
Oh really... so why is that, if they work well? Maybe it is because they are a pain to set up and use, requiring special semantics for creating objects?
if all would be so great working with gc in c++ (and all other features), there would not be a D.
remember, D is created by a developer of dmc (a c++ compiler wich has a plugin lib for gc, and all the extensions for features D has as well), because c++ doesn''t fit that nice around the things D can provide.
one of these is the gc. there are, of course, others.
the first "nice" way of adding a gc to c++ is the way c++.net will do in widbey (thats the name, not?).. with the ^ managed and * unmanaged pointers :D
If that''s not the help you''re after then you''re going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia
davepermen.net
remember, D is created by a developer of dmc (a c++ compiler wich has a plugin lib for gc, and all the extensions for features D has as well), because c++ doesn''t fit that nice around the things D can provide.
one of these is the gc. there are, of course, others.
the first "nice" way of adding a gc to c++ is the way c++.net will do in widbey (thats the name, not?).. with the ^ managed and * unmanaged pointers :D
If that''s not the help you''re after then you''re going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia
davepermen.net
quote:Original post by sjelkjd
When I code in c++, and I want to create a class, I tend to do the following:
1) Create the header file.
2) Add the include guards
3) create the source file
4) include the header file in the cpp
5) add a namespace in h and cpp
6) add a class in the header
7) add a ctr, op=, dtr to the header
8) add these to the cpp
9) add the precompiled header bit(you are trying to reduce compile times, yes?)
10) add the libraries i need
11) write std:: in front of everything, since I don't want to pollute namespaces
12) actually write the thing
Sure, but this isn't an argument for C# over C++. Almost all of the above (save the last really ) can be done automatically in C++ Builder for example, at the click of a mouse. Furthermore I can't see how making windows programs can be easier than using the VCL, considering I can make a full user interface to, say, connect to the internet, download a file, ftp a file, send e-mail etc. without ever writing any significant code.
All I'm trying to say is that while I accept C# as a reasonable language, most of the arguements being made are NOT about the language itself. Sure it's better than Visual C++ for many of these things, but that's more the fault of Visual C++ than the language. Anything that you can do in C# that you can also do just as easily in C++ Builder (for example... it tends to be the best and most full-featured compiler that I've found, albeit expensive for that reason) does NOT count as an advantage of C#, for obvious reasons.
Thus while you can argue about Garbage Collection and the like (although C++ Builder has CodeGuard, which is really an ideal solution of finding the exact problems and fixing them, AND still not having the overhead of GC on production/release code), you can't use the following as reasons for the "superiority of C# as a language":
- easier Windows programming (it doesn't get any easier than BCB)
- event driven Windows programming (VCL)
- IDE automation/redundancy (good IDEs will generate redundant code for you... and then you still have the option of changing it if need be).
- to a large extent, the .NET framework, as it is fully supported in BCB 6, etc.
- etc.
I do think there is some argument to a managed framework, especially as a response to users "my Windows crashes" complaints though, so I'd suggest that that be the area to focus the argument.
[edited by - AndyTX on January 30, 2004 11:27:42 AM]
quote:Original post by AndyTX
you can''t use the following as reasons for the "superiority of C# as a language":
....
- event driven Windows programming (VCL)
You are of course aware that Borland C++ Builder relies on proprietary C++ extensions tfor a lot of the central functionality of the VCL?
Just my thoughts...
Iv''e been doing some c# just lately,and i like it.
But i don''t think it would be wise to write a complete 3D game engine in just c# alone.
By 3D Game,let me try to write it clearly what i mean....i mean in the context of a game,say...Max Payne2,or Vice City,Mafia (oh yes,renderware is used in a lot of games i know).
Ok,say an engine like GOD(Gathering Of Developer''s) knock out.
Exiom and Ogre...these are MY opinions,so don''t take offense,otherwise i will have to come over there and slap you! Lol aren''t complete engine''s in my opinion.
I think,until a complete modern day game(with everything going on in an engine)Rendering,Physics,AI,etc etc ,and a full game has been made,then most things people call ''Game-Engine''s'' aren''t really complete engines.
Unless the engine was designed to just do some rendering,or a 3D-walkthrough that is
then its not really a complete engine.you get what i mean...
Iv''e decided to use MC++(c++ extensions)for the performance critical areas,and put a c# front on it.
I think most ''quality'' games,never use just 1 language to develop with anyway.
Just my thoughts.
Iv''e been doing some c# just lately,and i like it.
But i don''t think it would be wise to write a complete 3D game engine in just c# alone.
By 3D Game,let me try to write it clearly what i mean....i mean in the context of a game,say...Max Payne2,or Vice City,Mafia (oh yes,renderware is used in a lot of games i know).
Ok,say an engine like GOD(Gathering Of Developer''s) knock out.
Exiom and Ogre...these are MY opinions,so don''t take offense,otherwise i will have to come over there and slap you! Lol aren''t complete engine''s in my opinion.
I think,until a complete modern day game(with everything going on in an engine)Rendering,Physics,AI,etc etc ,and a full game has been made,then most things people call ''Game-Engine''s'' aren''t really complete engines.
Unless the engine was designed to just do some rendering,or a 3D-walkthrough that is
then its not really a complete engine.you get what i mean...
Iv''e decided to use MC++(c++ extensions)for the performance critical areas,and put a c# front on it.
I think most ''quality'' games,never use just 1 language to develop with anyway.
Just my thoughts.
Who the hell cares about C# when you have C++ and Python?
Also, no offense taken, OGRE is a graphics engine and has never claimed to be a gaming engine at all ( even though it has some nice hooks into other related ''engines'' for glueing them together ).
.z
quote:Original post by zfod
Who the hell cares about C# when you have C++ and Python?
And you''re a software engineer?
quote:Original post by CoffeeMugquote:Original post by zfod
Who the hell cares about C# when you have C++ and Python?
And you''re a software engineer?
And that was a sensible answer?
I don''t see much point in ''middle of the road'' languages like C#.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement