I guess I owe Java an apology
Btw, the issues with C++ mentioned are often legacy issues that could be changed, if they didn't mind breaking existing code. I know this is frowned upon, but I have to say that this is one reason I applaud Python 3.0's efforts. They've taken the initiative, after enough research, to break some existing code, in the hopes of making cleaner code henceforth and less ambiguity. I don't know how popular a decision this was, but I applaud it. I think if languages like C++ had taken this step, C++ might have less overall users of the language, but more who appreciate it.
Quote:Original post by Metorical
The limitations of the languages manifest on very fundamental levels that affect the entire design of the project. I would suspect that an expert in one language could forsee these problems and then potentially use a more appropriate tool for the job.
After all a programming language is just a tool so why not have as many tools in your box as possible and use the most suitable one for the task.
If you look at the article I linked earlier you'll notice that a lot of java apps used JNI for the bits they couldn't do well. I guess it's this layer that let a lot of them down though.
Trying to do raw JNI is utterly insane. I will say that I've successfully used SWIG, which happily wraps the ugly JNI code and does a nice job. As for the general premise of binding to another language which can do a given task better, this is a good policy, not one to be ashamed of. We don't talk about this as much with C++, but certainly many of us have worked on projects which used a mix of C++, C, possibly Fortran, and others.
Quote:Original post by fpsgamer
No matter what language someone chooses they will encounter some set of "pain in the ass" limitations. So either its impossible to be happy using any language, or mastering it is the only way to maximize your happiness.
Greyscale. Heard of it?
I hold this truth to be self-evident, that not all pains in the ass are created equal, that they are defined by their standards with certain unalienable properties, that among these properties are existence, metaprogramming capacity, and just how much of a pain in the ass they will be until the end of their useful (or not so useful) lifespan.
Smart people will choose the lesser of two pains in the ass when faced with choice, and will be disgruntled if they have no choice for obvious reasons.
Quote:Original post by nilkn
Crysis actually sold fairly poorly, and I believe a major reason for this is because the game was simply too demanding. Gaming is becoming an increasingly expensive hobby, and the rapid development of advanced graphical techniques has contributed to the commercial failure of a lot of otherwise phenomenal games like Crysis simply because too few people could run them properly.
According to EA's Q3 2008 conference call Crysis "exceeded expectations" and went platinum (over 1 million units sold).
I do agree with the sentiment though. The engine may scale down and play decently on lesser systems, but I don't see myself buying the game until I get around to picking up a new computer closer to the recommended specs.
Quote:Original post by MJP
I tend to find that beginners and less mature C++ programmers are the ones who constantly defend it and claim to enjoy using it. On other hand if you have more than a few years experience with C++ and you've worked on any large projects that use it...well you know just how deep the rabbit hole goes. And (in my case) you develop a deep appreciation for the ways in which tools like .NET save you valuable time and sanity.
C++ was what I learned after Pascal because I wanted an OO language with performance reasonable enough to write software rasterizers on older hardware (Pentium II generation) as well as take advantage of all the existing tutorial/documentation on C / C++ that is available (For example, the edition of CGPAP I bought uses C for all of its examples. Not sure if this is still the case...)
What I found was that once my projects would reach a certain size, they would implode. Mysterious, difficult to reproduce bugs would start cropping up and development would become slower and slower until between compile times and mystery bugs I really couldn't be productive.
C# and Java, by comparison, I find to be a breeze. It is still entirely possible to write bug-ridden code; but the language prevents a lot of it due to its design. Typically, if I've forgotten to insert some character here or there, rather than turn it into unsafe code and letting it execute the language catches it before the program is even able to run.
Quote:Originally spewed forth from the mouth of Frob:
Perhaps it would surprise you, then, to learn that several big-name games already use C#? How about the fact that mono has been ported to all the console chipsets, and that Ubisoft, THQ, EA, and of course Microsoft, have all said that they are using C# in major games that are due for release this year?
Do you have links or something to back that up? It's not that I don't believe you (in fact I really hope that it'll be true), I'd just like to read these things for myself.
Quote:Original post by frob
snip
Interesting, guess I was really in the blind. Thanks for the detailed clarification!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement