Quote:Original post by Paradigm Shifter
Headers allow you to see interface rather than implementation...

No, they give you both. What do you think private class members are? Besides, any decent IDE these days lets you collapse a source file to definitions, which would give you the same interface information even without separated header files.

Quote:Original post by Nitage
My entire point was that if you are looking for a Game library to use with C# you have 2 choices:

Tao, which supports only one commercially viable platform.
Managed Direct X, which supports two.

So - Mono, which only supports Tao, is unsuitable for commercial game programming.

How can I be clearer?

It's not about being clear. It's about being correct.

You're stuck in this loop where you equate "not the best" with "not usable at all". And I'm getting sick of that falicious reasoning. And yet you keep trying to use it!

Quote:Original post by Promit
I never even implied C# was suitable for professional game development. No languages other than C or C++ are ...

The developers of Arena Wars would disagree with you there.

Quote:Original post by Telastyn
In VS2005 at least, you can collapse C# code to definitions so it looks exactly like a c++ header, only without the compilation annoyances and logistical hooplah.

In D programming, you can either use headers or not. Most projects would probably not bother with headers, just import the (complete) module directly. For a library, strip out the module implementation leaving just the declarations. The D compiler can do this, generating a header module directly from a regular module.

There's a program to automatically translate a C .h header file to a D import. It'd be cool if there was one for C++ headers, too, but alas.

Quote:Original post by Promit

Quote:Original post by MaulingMonkey

Quote:Original post by Promit
I never even implied C# was suitable for professional game development. No languages other than C or C++ are ...

The developers of Arena Wars would disagree with you there.

Arena Wars is good and all, but it still stands basically as an indie title, rather than a professional one. (Yes the distinction is tenuous.)

Tenuous at best. I'd much rather distinguish between the developers of professional AAA titles and indies. In which case I'll agree with you :P.

Quote:Original post by MaulingMonkey

Quote:Original post by Nitage
My entire point was that if you are looking for a Game library to use with C# you have 2 choices:

Tao, which supports only one commercially viable platform.
Managed Direct X, which supports two.

So - Mono, which only supports Tao, is unsuitable for commercial game programming.

How can I be clearer?

It's not about being clear. It's about being correct.

You're stuck in this loop where you equate "not the best" with "not usable at all". And I'm getting sick of that falicious reasoning. And yet you keep trying to use it!

No.

I'm claiming that Mono is "not suitable for commerical game programming".
I am not claiming that Mono is ""not usable at all".


You and Promit claimed that Mono was suitable for game developement.

[Edited by - Nitage on October 5, 2006 5:05:19 AM]

Quote:Original post by Nitage
No.

I'm claiming that Mono is "not suitable for commerical game programming".
I am not claiming that Mono is ""not usable at all".

You and Promit claimed that Mono was suitable for game developement.

1) Promit didn't claim much of anything, as he himself points out.

2) Usable is a synonym of viable (reference) so when you did claim it to be unviable, you did claim it to not be usable at all within the context of commercial* game programming (which is the obvious subject).

3) I've already posted a direct example that could lead to the Tao framework being better suited for a given indie project than MDX. Without addressing this in the slightest, you continue to write off Mono as unsuitable - or more obviously worded, not usable at all in a project with a sane leader/manager within the context of commercial game programming.

4) It's also worth noting that if this is any indicator, Arena Wars originally used OpenGL.

Quote:W3bbo [Feb 14 2006]: "I'll add that Arena Wars was developed in C#, but the 3D power is OpenGL, not Managed DirectX."

Minh [Feb 14 2006]: "Arena Wars was recently converted to use Managed DirectX. It has an amazing world editor, BTW, if you're interested in that kind of stuff."

(note the timestamps are over a year older than the original release)

I'd wager their reasons had something to do with the same exact situation as I described earlier - API familiarity.


* Where I'm taking "commercial" to mean "In the interests of making money" rather than any "AAA Title/Top of the crop/Big business" definition.

Quote:
2) Usable is a synonym of viable (href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable">reference) so when you did claim it to be unviable, you did claim it to not be usable at all within the context of commercial* game programming (which is the obvious subject).

Synonyms are different words with identical or similar meanings.

The link you gave listed the following synonyms for viable: practical, feasible, usable, adaptable.

I've used bold to indicate the meanings that you deliberatley chose to ignore in an attempt to make me look foolish.

Quote:

Quote:
You and Promit claimed that Mono was suitable for game developement.

1) Promit didn't claim much of anything, as he himself points out.

In reply to a post suggesting that Mono is nowhere near being a credible solution. Promit said "This is just the part where I leave the thread, because the person I'm talking to is an idiot."

This clearly shows he strongly disagrees with that assessment.

Quote:
3) I've already posted a direct example that could lead to the Tao framework being better suited for a given indie project than MDX. Without addressing this in the slightest, you continue to write off Mono as unsuitable - or more obviously worded, not usable at all in a project with a sane leader/manager within the context of commercial game programming.

Given the big differences between Indie and commercial developement - not limited to the fact that Indie developers almost never target consoles - demonstrating that Tao is viable for Indie developement does not demonstrate that Tao is viable for commercial development. I didn't address your point because it wasn't relevant.

It is worth noting though that even though OpenGL was originally used for Arena Wars (presumably porting to the XBox was never a issue for them), the developers then went to the trouble of porting in to Managed DirectX.

So your example shows that the developers of Arena Wars considered the benefits using Managed DirectX outweighed the cost of porting to it. Hardly a glowing recomendation for OpenGL with .Net.

Quote:Original post by Nitage

Quote:
2) Usable is a synonym of viable (href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable">reference) so when you did claim it to be unviable, you did claim it to not be usable at all within the context of commercial* game programming (which is the obvious subject).

Synonyms are different words with identical or similar meanings.

The link you gave listed the following synonyms for viable: practical, feasible, usable, adaptable.

I've used bold to indicate the meanings that you deliberatley chose to ignore in an attempt to make me look foolish.

That's what I'm doing, is it?

I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that you've only ommited #4 which would seem to indicate it to be practical and feasible as well because you hit reply before I edited it in... even though you've done similar to numerous posts of mine ignoring their content which were in fact in the original versions.

Quote:In reply to a post reply to a post that was itself a reply to a post which among many other things suggested that Mono is nowhere near being a credible solution. Promit said "This is just the part where I leave the thread, because the person I'm talking to is an idiot."

Fixed. It clearly shows jack shit, given that Promit explicitly contradicts the conclusion you've arrived at later:

Quote:Original post by Promit
I never even implied C# was suitable for professional game development. No languages other than C or C++ are ...

Quote:

Quote:3) I've already posted a direct example that could lead to the Tao framework being better suited for a given indie project than MDX. Without addressing this in the slightest, you continue to write off Mono as unsuitable - or more obviously worded, not usable at all in a project with a sane leader/manager within the context of commercial game programming.

Given the big differences between Indie and commercial developement - not limited to the fact that Indie developers almost never target consoles - demonstrating that Tao is viable for Indie developement does not demonstrate that Tao is viable for commercial development.

There are commercial indie projects ~_~. While there are various definitions of "commercial" which can exclude them entirely - the British Informal usage to refer to a traveling salesperson for example - none of them apply to game develop that can't be applied to, say, Arena Wars as well.