*inux and Game programing
Author
So im sure this is gonna start a war, but...
Is there any Advantages/Disadvantages to using a *Unix OS for game Dev. Or is Windows better for PC games, What are console games programed in?
Thoughts, Flames??
Thanks.
Most people find *nix a more enjoyable environment to program for, but most consumers run windows. One really easy solution is to use SDL and opengl, as these are portable to both environments. This was you can release your game for both. Console game, it depends on the console.
Author
Ok im a newb. Whats the SDL?
I used unix, learned it, but i find Win and VC++ easier to program in. Although programing for WIN is a pain in the ass, i really dont mind so much.
Main reason for the question was, should i get REALLY Familiar with *nix befor looking for a game Dev job in the industry? Or does it really matter?
I used unix, learned it, but i find Win and VC++ easier to program in. Although programing for WIN is a pain in the ass, i really dont mind so much.
Main reason for the question was, should i get REALLY Familiar with *nix befor looking for a game Dev job in the industry? Or does it really matter?
Both have good points and bad points,
*nix, little OS interaction, non-conformity some programs will work with some versions and some won''t, limited hardware support, users generally don''t want to pay for software
Windows, required OS program flow functions, good hardware support, directx complicated, stability issues
I''d suggest using a library, such as Allegro, SDL, GLUT and probably few others, that make the OS transparent.
Another option is to program in java and not care what OS it runs on.
*nix, little OS interaction, non-conformity some programs will work with some versions and some won''t, limited hardware support, users generally don''t want to pay for software
Windows, required OS program flow functions, good hardware support, directx complicated, stability issues
I''d suggest using a library, such as Allegro, SDL, GLUT and probably few others, that make the OS transparent.
Another option is to program in java and not care what OS it runs on.
All operating systems have stability issues, and anybody who still believes that Windows is less stable than, say, Linux, has his head stuck in a hole in the ground; they're a about on-par by now.
Console games use whatever the API is for that particular console; they're proprietary.
The Windows API is much richer than that of any Unix variant. If you want an even richer API, try Cocoa. Besides, the Macintosh game market is significantly more viable than the *nix game market (and, of course, they're all microscopic compared to Windows).
[edited by - merlin9x9 on March 23, 2002 2:13:06 PM]
Console games use whatever the API is for that particular console; they're proprietary.
The Windows API is much richer than that of any Unix variant. If you want an even richer API, try Cocoa. Besides, the Macintosh game market is significantly more viable than the *nix game market (and, of course, they're all microscopic compared to Windows).
[edited by - merlin9x9 on March 23, 2002 2:13:06 PM]
I think the main question has been answered well enough, so I'm going off on a tangent here.
NT derived kernels are more stable than 9x/ME, obviously. When I'm doing normal desktop stuff, they (Linux and 2K) are the same. But I've found a number of things 2K doesn't like, and it will crash if I do them. Likewise, I know a number of things X doesn't like, and it will lock. However, I can just go to one of the other machines in my house and kill X from a SSH terminal (since the OS stuff is still running fine, even if the graphics/interface isn't). So, there's no reboot nescessary in the latter situation. I'm not going to directly compare their stability since it would just make people inflamed and I'd rather avoid that.
Now that is a statement that meant next to nothing even if it were provable. The POSIX libraries get the system level stuff, X gets the graphics, and libraries that use or extend X get almost everything else. Now, incase I misunderstood your claim, would you like to clarify what you meant?
[edited by - Null and Void on March 23, 2002 4:16:11 PM]
quote:Original post by merlin9x9
All operating systems have stability issues, and anybody who still believes that Windows is less stable than, say, Linux, has his head stuck in a hole in the ground; they're a about on-par by now.
NT derived kernels are more stable than 9x/ME, obviously. When I'm doing normal desktop stuff, they (Linux and 2K) are the same. But I've found a number of things 2K doesn't like, and it will crash if I do them. Likewise, I know a number of things X doesn't like, and it will lock. However, I can just go to one of the other machines in my house and kill X from a SSH terminal (since the OS stuff is still running fine, even if the graphics/interface isn't). So, there's no reboot nescessary in the latter situation. I'm not going to directly compare their stability since it would just make people inflamed and I'd rather avoid that.
quote:Original post by merlin9x9
The Windows API is much richer than that of any Unix variant.
Now that is a statement that meant next to nothing even if it were provable. The POSIX libraries get the system level stuff, X gets the graphics, and libraries that use or extend X get almost everything else. Now, incase I misunderstood your claim, would you like to clarify what you meant?
[edited by - Null and Void on March 23, 2002 4:16:11 PM]
The remote aspect of X is certainly something Windows doesn't have.
The best thing I can do is point you to the book Win32 System Programming . which contains a table showing the correspondence between the Win32 and Unix APIs. Win32 has lots more stuff. Moreover, Win32 functions' purposes are obvious by their name (they're in complete English), while Unix's are usually fewer than 6 characters in length. Unix doesn't have a number of services built into it, such as the aforementioned threads. The book isn't particularly biased toward any platform, but is mostly intended to help Unix programmers transition to Windows. Needless to say, all of this must be taken with a grain of salt. I've worked with both, and I find that Windows has a lot more stuff to help me out. Call it opinion if you like, but as far as sheer number of functions goes (even ignoring redundant functionality), Win32 (again, just the base) simply has more.
Of course, more != better, but I was never arguing that anything is better than anything else...
...though I really like Cocoa.
[edited by - merlin9x9 on March 23, 2002 6:28:49 PM]
The best thing I can do is point you to the book Win32 System Programming . which contains a table showing the correspondence between the Win32 and Unix APIs. Win32 has lots more stuff. Moreover, Win32 functions' purposes are obvious by their name (they're in complete English), while Unix's are usually fewer than 6 characters in length. Unix doesn't have a number of services built into it, such as the aforementioned threads. The book isn't particularly biased toward any platform, but is mostly intended to help Unix programmers transition to Windows. Needless to say, all of this must be taken with a grain of salt. I've worked with both, and I find that Windows has a lot more stuff to help me out. Call it opinion if you like, but as far as sheer number of functions goes (even ignoring redundant functionality), Win32 (again, just the base) simply has more.
Of course, more != better, but I was never arguing that anything is better than anything else...
...though I really like Cocoa.
[edited by - merlin9x9 on March 23, 2002 6:28:49 PM]
quote:Original post by merlin9x9
The remote aspect of X is certainly something Windows doesn''t have.
The best thing I can do is point you to the book Win32 System Programming . which contains a table showing the correspondence between the Win32 and Unix APIs. Win32 has lots more stuff. Moreover, Win32 functions'' purposes are obvious by their name (they''re in complete English), while Unix''s are usually fewer than 6 characters in length. Unix doesn''t have a number of services built into it, such as the aforementioned threads. The book isn''t particularly biased toward any platform, but is mostly intended to help Unix programmers transition to Windows. Needless to say, all of this must be taken with a grain of salt. I''ve worked with both, and I find that Windows has a lot more stuff to help me out. Call it opinion if you like, but as far as sheer number of functions goes (even ignoring redundant functionality), Win32 (again, just the base) simply has more.
Of course, more != better, but I was never arguing that anything is better than anything else...
...though I really like Cocoa.
Sure, if you take the entire Win32 API and only compare it to the low level POSIX system calls, Win32 will have more features. However, to be fair you have to include the UNIX GUI toolkits as well. Take a look at the features of Qt and compare them to the Win32 API and I think you''ll find that Qt will come out on top, feature wise. Unless there have been major changes to the Win32 API while I''ve been out in unix land, of course.
It certainly is fair to compare the base API''s since it''s comparing apples to apples.
Even if you compare the GUI services, I believe that Windows will still have more. And that''ll be true even against Qt. If I''m not mistaken, Qt represents subsets of functionality across all supported GUIs, which is how it manages to be cross-platform. Qt is best compared to MFC or WinForms in the Windows world, and I''d say that they''re probably about equal in terms of effective functionality.
Again, I''m in no way arguing that one is better than the other. Such a comparison is inherently impossible.
Even if you compare the GUI services, I believe that Windows will still have more. And that''ll be true even against Qt. If I''m not mistaken, Qt represents subsets of functionality across all supported GUIs, which is how it manages to be cross-platform. Qt is best compared to MFC or WinForms in the Windows world, and I''d say that they''re probably about equal in terms of effective functionality.
Again, I''m in no way arguing that one is better than the other. Such a comparison is inherently impossible.
quote:Original post by merlin9x9
It certainly is fair to compare the base API''s since it''s comparing apples to apples.
Even if you compare the GUI services, I believe that Windows will still have more. And that''ll be true even against Qt. If I''m not mistaken, Qt represents subsets of functionality across all supported GUIs, which is how it manages to be cross-platform. Qt is best compared to MFC or WinForms in the Windows world, and I''d say that they''re probably about equal in terms of effective functionality.
Again, I''m in no way arguing that one is better than the other. Such a comparison is inherently impossible.
We are not comparing apples to oranges here. Unices in general do not have an integrated API, like windows does. You´d have to sum all the different APIs to even hope to make a comparison like this. Sure, you could just take the entire Win32 API against the linux kernel, but that wouldn´t be fair.
Fact is, there are enough calls. More than that would be just bloat.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
