Java-Gaming.org    
Featured games (91)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (579)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (500)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
  ignore  |  Print  
  If you ever wanted a reason to use a modern langauge...  (Read 40680 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline Jeff

JGO Coder




Got any cats?


« Reply #90 - Posted 2006-02-13 04:05:44 »

Hey no need to get pissed with some poor lost souls.  Grin They are only trying to get someone to beat their misconceptions and learn something with some hard facts. That was getting obvious when they constantly avoided backing up their arguments with proof.

Not sure he wanted the facts though, since anyone who actually gave them to him is apparently a  "zelot" or "childish"..

SIc Semper Trolls

Got a question about Java and game programming?  Just new to the Java Game Development Community?  Try my FAQ.  Its likely you'll learn something!

http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Games/JeffFAQ
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #91 - Posted 2006-02-13 09:49:02 »

And frankly Im tired of this troll.  You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him think.

So as far as Im concrned.... **plonk**

I can see your frustration but it isn't my fault. Blame your weak argumentation. Are you sure you could talk a horse into going to water? If he won't you just declare him a troll right Grin  You're quite a troll yourself by the way. One that is taking himself far too seriously.

I'm playing the devil's advocate because I like Java. I think now and with version 6 is the time when Java finally is up to it on the desktop. But you have to convince the C++ people so I've put myself in their place to collect arguments.

I hereby declare Jeff  winner of The Strongest pro-Java Argument Contest: You're a troll if you don't use Java!  Grin

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #92 - Posted 2006-02-13 10:21:02 »

I wonder why people use C++ instead of assembler because assembler is way faster than C++.
It's because C++ is a porttable high-level multi-paradigm language derived from C with a performance that's comparable to assembly for a substantial size application.
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #93 - Posted 2006-02-13 10:55:27 »

My astonishment was actually how long Java has been viable as a games programming language (as many posters here have already said) and how few game development teams had picked it up given how high time pressure in game development is meant to be and how much more complicated PC games in particular are becoming.

It's because C++ is a perfectly good alternative. One argument for using Java is that it's more productive, but is it really?

Just one example to be specific. In Java there's a tendency to not use classes (and even arrays) in time constrained code because object creation is expensive. You're basically reverting to use Java as you would C. There are many aspects of productivity but this is one: C++ lets you keep up your data abstractions in lower level code without performance penalties to a much larger extent than Java.

Offline princec

JGO Kernel


Medals: 282
Projects: 3
Exp: 16 years


Eh? Who? What? ... Me?


« Reply #94 - Posted 2006-02-13 11:48:35 »

To some extent that's true, but rarely so, and even when it is true, a simple bit of abstraction in the design will help you tune it out. Instead of directly coding to an array of Vector3fs one would instead have the abstraction ArrayOfVector3fs; if it turned out the overhead of having 1m Vector3fs floating was a performance hit upon profiling you could easily implement ArrayOfVector3fs to use 3 big float arrays instead. As an example. The point being you'd design it right first, profile it if there was a problem, then tune it easily.

The productivity benefits are pretty much concrete and having been doing this stuff for more years than I care to count the difference I've experienced with Java is quite profound. In fact I don't think there is anyone worth listening to on TEH INTARWEB who would disagree with that, apart from C++ programmers, and as they're programmers and not managers they are probably not the people to be asking. I'm a manager now and I'll tell you this for free: a team of Java programmers runs rings around a team of C++ programmers. The arguments about performance and productivity are just completely irrelevant. The problem now is about deployment (lack of fast VM and x-plat graphics API on any console), skills (lack of available talent - shouldn't be too long though), and middleware (no JRenderware etc.).

Cas Smiley

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #95 - Posted 2006-02-13 12:32:08 »

The point being you'd design it right first, profile it if there was a problem, then tune it easily.

That suggestion may save memory space but if would almost certainly degrade time performance. The reason is that you will now have to create a Vector3f object for every access to ArrayOfVector3fs.

You will almost certainly have to give up the Vector3f abstraction at a substantial part of the code to improve performance. I haven't looked at any of the scenegraph implementations available but I would be surprised if they haven't done that.

Offline princec

JGO Kernel


Medals: 282
Projects: 3
Exp: 16 years


Eh? Who? What? ... Me?


« Reply #96 - Posted 2006-02-13 13:26:00 »

Oh no you wouldn't Smiley And this is where the design part comes in, but this is getting a bit specific for this thread.

Cas Smiley

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #97 - Posted 2006-02-13 13:56:46 »

Oh no you wouldn't Smiley And this is where the design part comes in, but this is getting a bit specific for this thread.
Well explain your design. You don't have to be specific.

As I got it you said that instead of having an array of Vector3f objects you abstract that to a class ArrayOfVector3fs holding the array. What do you get out of that class? Still Vector3f objects I presume. You may then later change the implementation of ArrayOfVector3fs to hold three arrays of floats. But that doesn't influence the ArrayOfVector3fs's public interface. It still has to deliver Vector3f objects. The difference is that now they have to be produced on demand from individual floats held in arrays.

That was your proposed design and it reduces memory requirements but degrades time performance. Or did you have something else in mind?

For example did you think of moving code from outside of ArrayOfVector3fs working on Vector3f objects to inside of ArrayOfVector3fs now instead working on vectors of float? Then your design is nothing more than the administration of a lowering of the abtstraction level. And this is exactly what I said. In Java you tend to have to do this for efficiency reasons. In C++ you don't.
Offline Vorax

Senior Member


Projects: 1


System shutting down in 5..4..3...


« Reply #98 - Posted 2006-02-13 14:08:32 »

I can give you a hint (heading out the door) - data can be proxied - objects can be resused.

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #99 - Posted 2006-02-13 14:26:23 »

I can give you a hint (heading out the door) - data can be proxied - objects can be resused.

You mean object pooling? That's generally considered a bad idea with todays fast GC. Object pooling just gets in the way.

And this is still just a fix of the fundamental problem. Object creation in Java is expensive so you tend to lower the abstraction level in time challanged code more than you would in C++. So C++ allows you to program at a higher abstraction level in this type of code. This is generally considered good for programmer productivity.

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline princec

JGO Kernel


Medals: 282
Projects: 3
Exp: 16 years


Eh? Who? What? ... Me?


« Reply #100 - Posted 2006-02-13 14:52:35 »

Object creation in Java is generally no more expensive than C++ - fact. Collection can be a little more expensive (not for much longer on Sun's VM though). You're talking about a pathological case here where you have described how to do everything wrong and then want me to design fixes for it. The first problem is: what's your array of vectors for? No-one knows, so designing an optimised solution for it isn't possible. The second problem is, you don't know the actual performance of using the array of vectors in the actual place where it's being used, as both are hypothetical. So you're already worried about optimising something that doesn't have a performance problem that doesn't exist for a problem that no-one yet knows. This is the kind of thing that C++ programmers do! Write the code for elegance first in Java to fit the design, profile it, and if it's slow, optimise it. Which might bring us to another issue: just try profiling in Java versus C++. Knockout! C++ IDE crawls away bleeding to concentrate on device drivers and kernels.

Cas Smiley

Offline swpalmer

JGO Coder




Where's the Kaboom?


« Reply #101 - Posted 2006-02-13 14:56:56 »

In Java there's a tendency to not use classes (and even arrays) in time constrained code because object creation is expensive.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Object creation time depends on what you stick in your constructor - no different than C/C++.
Object ALLOCATION time is fast, likely faster than C in many cases because you get some advantages with the VM managing the heap.

edit: Cas beat me to it.. but he didn't mention...

One aspect that I haven't seen discussed much though is that in Java newly allocated objects must be zeroed (or at least act like they are), C++ doesn't have that requirement, so that might affect speed in some cases.  (You just get some bugs along with it Smiley)

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #102 - Posted 2006-02-13 15:07:49 »

Object creation in Java is generally no more expensive than C++ - fact.
Who said it was? I didn't. On the contrary. Heap object creation is generally much slower in C++. The difference is that C++ has value sematics for objects. You don't have to create objects on the heap.

This is the kind of thing that C++ programmers do! Write the code for elegance first in Java to fit the design, profile it, and if it's slow, optimise it. Which might bring us to another issue: just try profiling in Java versus C++. Knockout! C++ IDE crawls away bleeding to concentrate on device drivers and kernels.

You're jumping to conclussions about what C++ programmers do or don't. And there's nothing inherent about Java that guarantees a better design than C++.

Instead of talking in general terms about the elegant designs possible in Java, explain the design you proposed above. It will be interesting to know how it solves the problem I pointed out.
Offline princec

JGO Kernel


Medals: 282
Projects: 3
Exp: 16 years


Eh? Who? What? ... Me?


« Reply #103 - Posted 2006-02-13 15:48:27 »

Er, you did:
... Object creation in Java is expensive so ...

Cas Smiley

Offline Vorax

Senior Member


Projects: 1


System shutting down in 5..4..3...


« Reply #104 - Posted 2006-02-13 16:14:33 »

Uggh... these threads are such a waste of time.

@.uj -

1 - Can C++ be faster then Java - YES
2 - Does this mean that Java isn't good for game development - NO
3 - Can Java be used to build ANY game that can be built in C++?  - UNKNOWN - Logic would suggest that a game pushing the absolute limits of the CPU may not be possible in Java without bridging to native assembly calls, though a C++ version would probably require that as well.  1-5% of games developed per year may fall into that category.
4 - Is Java faster for development then C++ - YES.
5 - Is there any point about arguing performance issues of C++ vs Java - NO - Unless your game falls into category 3, such arguments are a waste of time and either:
  A) show your ignorance of Java
  B) show your tendency toward premature optimization
  C) show which god you follow in this *mostly* religious debate
  D) show your intent on trolling

Point 2 and point 4 is all this entire thread was supposed to be about.  Unless you are developing a category 3 game, then there is no point of this discussion.  If you are developing such a game I understand your concerns.  If you have particular issues, post them and we can try to help you resolve them.  Otherwise, you have fallen into one of items A-D and are wasting everyones time.

Offline zingbat

Senior Member




Java games rock!


« Reply #105 - Posted 2006-02-13 17:32:36 »

I wonder why people use C++ instead of assembler because assembler is way faster than C++.
It's because C++ is a porttable high-level multi-paradigm language derived from C with a performance that's comparable to assembly for a substantial size application.

Ha ha ha ha

What was the last C++ project you have been in? Besides nothing compares to some well hand-optimazed assembler code by someone who is an expert in this area. Not even a JIT which is way smarter than a C++ compiler optimizer.

Don't forget to tell this guy that Java can use assembler with JNI just like C++ can use inline assembler. The only possible problem was solved long ago with NIO buffers.
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #106 - Posted 2006-02-13 17:39:38 »


Let's not get stuck here. I'm arguing a point first posted in #93. Here it is again:

"C++ lets you keep up your data abstractions in lower level code without performance penalties to a much larger extent than Java."

This is nothing you can design your way out of as you gallantly proposed but then failed to further explain.

The reason for this I think is that object creation (or rather handling if you include the whole object life cycle) is more expensive in Java than it has to be in C++. It's because C++ has value semantics for objects something Java lacks.

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #107 - Posted 2006-02-13 18:11:49 »

Point 2 and point 4 is all this entire thread was supposed to be about. Unless you are developing a category 3 game, then there is no point of this discussion.  If you are developing such a game I understand your concerns.  If you have particular issues, post them and we can try to help you resolve them.  Otherwise, you have fallen into one of items A-D and are wasting everyones time.

I'm still replying with the OP in mind. The OP expressed astonishment as to why people are sticking to C++ instead of jumping onto something more modern like Java.

I have no particular issues with Java or C++. I know both better than most. I've explained my reason for posting in #91:

"I'm playing the devil's advocate because I like Java. I think now and with version 6 is the time when Java finally is up to it on the desktop. But you have to convince the C++ people so I've put myself in their place to collect arguments."

What I may not be interested in is the kind of stacatto replies you're offering:  yes-no, yes-no, yes-no presented without argumentation in a cocksure besserwissing manner. That's definately a waste of time especially in a general discussion forum.
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #108 - Posted 2006-02-13 18:21:54 »

Ha ha ha ha

What's so funny? You asked why people use C++ instead of assembly to which I replied:

"It's because C++ is a porttable high-level multi-paradigm language derived from C with a performance that's comparable to assembly for a substantial size application."

It's roughly the same reason why people are using Java instead if assembly I guess.
Offline princec

JGO Kernel


Medals: 282
Projects: 3
Exp: 16 years


Eh? Who? What? ... Me?


« Reply #109 - Posted 2006-02-13 18:25:01 »

A little research from .uj would have hopefully revealed to him what escape analysis is and what it can do for those Java applications that would benefit from it and structs, which is an acknowledgement that certain kinds of operation on IO buffers are hampered by memory bandwidth when used with Java heap objects. However.... the case remains to be shown that there is, in fact, any performance problem at all for 95% of games, mainly because few people have actually tried. The closest Java has to a pure Java AAA title is Tribal Trouble, and I don't see that suffering from performance problems.

So we really ought to drop the whole issue of performance, because it's really not an issue. As I said, as a development manager now, my primary concerns now are deployment, time-to-market, quality, and skillsets. Seeing as there's no JVM on XBox or PS, I'm not going to go near Java for a AAA title, end of story, even if all the programmers I can find hate C++.

I know he's playing devil's advocate here btw, just like I do from time to time - don't mistake him for a troll Wink

Cas Smiley

Offline kevglass

JGO Kernel


Medals: 85
Projects: 25


Coder, Trainee Pixel Artist, Game Reviewer


« Reply #110 - Posted 2006-02-13 18:34:45 »

Quote
I'm still replying with the OP in mind. The OP expressed astonishment as to why people are sticking to C++ instead of jumping onto something more modern like Java.

Not quite - I was surprised given that modern languages have been viable for games development for a few years why there has been almost no detectable move to modern language. Check out the adverts in the back of GameDev magazine - almost nothing to do with anything other than C++. I'm not surprised the dev's didn't "jump onto something more modern" the minute it was available but there hasn't been much movement in the years that the languages have been useful.

So far from my blog and here I have the following observations (Java related since I don't really ask about much else Smiley):

- The console hardware/software isn't anywhere as far as long as I'd originally thought. I can now understand pefectly why Java isn't used there yet. Its simply a matter of not enough low level access.

- Java is still attached to the "slow" stigma (whether shown to be less than accurate by games like Wurm, Tribal Trouble and MegaCorps).

- There has been a lack of marketing with respect to Java for Games (no belittlement to what ChrisM, Jeff and others are doing at the moment). Game developers that I've been contacted by recently just don't even think of it as an option. (C# is apparantly growing in this area)

- I used to think the only way to convince game developers that Java was a good idea was to show them complete projects in which Java was used succesfully - however, this doesn't work. You generally get a "hmm, yeah, but X, Y, Z high tech graphics features arn't in that game are they?".

- Games design/source/development hasn't reached the level of complexity that other applications have - otherwise the benefits of modern langauges (Java/Ruby/C# whatever) would be blatantly obvious. Game life appears to be getting longer and the detail level higher - in time I suppose things will shake themselfs out.

- Converstaions/Threads like this don't help anything due to their zealoty type nature.

Just observations as I've received mails, comments on the entry and reading this thread.

.uj have you started developing a game in Java? Will you given the conversation here?

Kev


Offline kevglass

JGO Kernel


Medals: 85
Projects: 25


Coder, Trainee Pixel Artist, Game Reviewer


« Reply #111 - Posted 2006-02-13 18:40:41 »

Oh, yeah, I take it back, not a Troll.. I just looked it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I guess the early insult knocked you into this category for me at least; "unfortunately, many users react aggressively on a first impression to a perceived troll, which sometimes leads disgruntled newbies or political minorities to be perceived trolls."

I love the idea of someone who doesn't jump to Java's defense as a "political minority". Smiley

Kev

Offline Vorax

Senior Member


Projects: 1


System shutting down in 5..4..3...


« Reply #112 - Posted 2006-02-13 19:07:47 »

What I may not be interested in is the kind of stacatto replies you're offering:  yes-no, yes-no, yes-no presented without argumentation in a cocksure besserwissing manner. That's definately a waste of time especially in a general discussion forum.


If your as experienced in C++ and Java as you claim, then you should already have the answers.

Sometimes there really are yes and no answers and everything else is just clouding and misdirection.  The questions I posed are simply and accuratley answered with those two and three letter words.  I choose to simplify the questions and responses to eliminate the possibility for you or anyone else to misdirect the discussion further.  However, here are some statements to backup my "cocksure" answers:

1 - Can C++ be faster then Java - YES.  -

C++ can do some forms of data manipulation faster and often has a more direct route (less abstraction) from the hardware, therefore there are areas where C++ can exceed Java's performance.

2 - Does this mean that Java isn't good for game development - NO.

Several games have already been developed in Java - covering everything from simple 2D to 3D using the latest video card capabilities - across all game genres.  The language is turing complete and sufficiently performant enough for 95% of the games one would want to develop.

3 - Can Java be used to build ANY game that can be built in C++?  - UNKNOWN - Logic would suggest that a game pushing the absolute limits of the CPU may not be possible in Java without bridging to native assembly calls, though a C++ version would probably require that as well.  1-5% of games developed per year may fall into that category.

No one has built or attempted to build a truly bleeding edge engine in Java as of this time.  So there is no proof either way. 

4 - Is Java faster for development then C++ - YES.

There are many examples out there of this, but I'll give you one of my own. 

My company is owned by an umbrella company which is ranked as the 6th largest software developer in Canada.  In 2002 I was hired to hire a team and design a rewrite of our core product from the ground up.   I choose to use Java and the project was completed on time and under budget 2 years later.  Four of our sister companies were challenged at the same time with the same task.  None of them succeded and all but one was eventually cancelled (they were using Delphi and are close - 2 years late, but close).  Two of the projects were in C++.   Our parent company was very upset (millions of dollars wasted) and hired consultants to evaluate the projects.  The C++ projects both had more resources and the scope of the products they were developing were substantially smaller.   Primary reasons sited for the falures was technical complexity inherint with the technology platforms chosen.  As the size and complexity grew, the development slowed and stalled.  Our product was the only one that was finished, the only one under budget, required the least resources, was the largest project (functionality wise - 4.5 Million lines of code) and is the only one that runs on multiple platforms.   I got promoted to director of R&D for being the architect of the project and our parent company has me consult on all the techology decisions being made across the various companies for anything with a budget exceeding a million dollars.

Ton's of other stories exist.  It's the nature of language design.  Eliminate the pain points to improve the productivness and simplify the solution.

5 - Is there any point about arguing performance issues of C++ vs Java - NO

People see what they want to see.  We can go back and forth for a millenia and be no further in this discussion.   That's why it's a waste of time and there is no point.

Offline zingbat

Senior Member




Java games rock!


« Reply #113 - Posted 2006-02-13 19:15:12 »

Ha ha ha ha
What's so funny? You asked why people use C++ instead of assembly to which I replied:

"It's because C++ is a porttable high-level multi-paradigm language derived from C with a performance that's comparable to assembly for a substantial size application."

It's roughly the same reason why people are using Java instead if assembly I guess.

Thats exactly the same reason why people are shifting from C++ to Java and for the reasons i explained above if you understand something about compiler optimization and how it is evolving. The funny part is how your answer reminds me of some very old hype about C++ that never become a reality and only got worse with the passing years. While Java hype is already a reality. C++ is dieing and being replace by a combination of either Assembler + C for low level and critical code and C# or Java for what was before the C++ domain. Java competition is not C++ but C# and other modern languages.
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #114 - Posted 2006-02-13 20:41:09 »

A little research from .uj would have hopefully revealed to him what escape analysis is and what it can do for those Java applications that would benefit from it

I know about escape analysis and it fits very well into my general argument regarding why people stick with C++ instead of jumping onto the Java bandwaggon. Already from the start Java has claimed to have the potential of being faster than C++ very soon now.  Well let's hope it finally happens with version 6 after 10 years of wait. But I seriously doubt it. Java seems destined to always be the future kid.

Offline Jeff

JGO Coder




Got any cats?


« Reply #115 - Posted 2006-02-13 20:44:47 »

Uggh... these threads are such a waste of time.

@.uj -

1 - Can C++ be faster then Java - YES

1a - Can Java be faster then C++? YES
Witness any FFT shoot off thats ever been done.  I don't knwo why exactly but it seems thats a particularly *good* problem for Java.
Quote
 
3 - Can Java be used to build ANY game that can be built in C++?  - UNKNOWN - Logic would suggest that a game pushing the absolute limits of the CPU may not be possible in Java without bridging to native assembly calls,

What logic?  Java is compiled just like C.  Java has *more* information available about the target system when it compiles then C does, being a run-time compiler.

If anything, logic says that Java *should* be able to actually beat C code in terms of raw assembly generation.

Quote
5 - Is there any point about arguing performance issues of C++ vs Java - NO - Unless your game falls into category 3, such arguments are a waste of time and either:
  A) show your ignorance of Java
  B) show your tendency toward premature optimization
  C) show which god you follow in this *mostly* religious debate
  D) show your intent on trolling

Here I agree. a thorough waste of time EXCPET that such misinformed nonsense can lead people who really DO want answers to the wrong conclusions.  This is the reason i take a certain amount of time to answer them.  But its worth only so much effort....

Got a question about Java and game programming?  Just new to the Java Game Development Community?  Try my FAQ.  Its likely you'll learn something!

http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Games/JeffFAQ
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #116 - Posted 2006-02-13 20:51:15 »

This is the reason i take a certain amount of time to answer them.  But its worth only so much effort....

Well it's really very good of you to beam down from the mothership once in a while to reveal the secrets of Java to us mere eartlings.
Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #117 - Posted 2006-02-13 21:05:48 »

Thats exactly the same reason why people are shifting from C++ to Java and for the reasons i explained above if you understand something about compiler optimization and how it is evolving. The funny part is how your answer reminds me of some very old hype about C++ that never become a reality and only got worse with the passing years. While Java hype is already a reality. C++ is dieing and being replace by a combination of either Assembler + C for low level and critical code and C# or Java for what was before the C++ domain. Java competition is not C++ but C# and other modern languages.

So you propose that the the assembly to high-level language shift can be compared with a C++ to an even-higher-language shift.

That just shows your lack of perspective. The former was a huge evolutionary leap. The latter is just a small step in evolution. You may have noticed that C++ is also a .NET language. Microsoft is treating C# and C++ on an equal footing with C++ as "Horsepower with a finer degree of control than other Express Editions".

Offline .uj

Junior Member





« Reply #118 - Posted 2006-02-13 21:21:06 »

If your as experienced in C++ and Java as you claim, then you should already have the answers.

Sometimes there really are yes and no answers and everything else is just clouding and misdirection.  The questions I posed are simply and accuratley answered with those two and three letter words.  I choose to simplify the questions and responses to eliminate the possibility for you or anyone else to misdirect the discussion further.  However, here are some statements to backup my "cocksure" answers:

Thank you for replying. I know both C++ and Java very well and that's exactly why I find it so difficult to decide which one is better in a given situation. I also think I know why C++ still is preferred in gaming but I don't necessarily consider that "fair".

Offline Breakfast

Senior Member




for great justice!


« Reply #119 - Posted 2006-02-13 21:27:35 »

When you talk about C++ for the .net platform you are talking about memory-managed C++. At that point there isn't really any difference between it and C# - they are both compiled to MSIL and run on the .net VM  and I woudl be very surprised if there was any performance advantage to C++ over C#. If you're using unmanaged C++ then you're presumably still stuck with the arcana of memory management and the productivity/performance payoffs that entails.

All of which reminds me that this is an argument that I absolutely do not care about in the slightest -the only games I can think of that were improved by the language they were written in are the old SCUMM ones because SCUMM let them concentrate on making good games and possibly an arcadey beat-em-up of a few years ago that used python for in-game scripting and was supremely moddable for it - and I'm not even sure what anyone is talking about by this stage, except that I agree with Kev that regardless of language a lot of game development houses seem to be stuck 10-15 years in the past as far as development practice is concerrned. How that became such a hectic discussion of C++ I really don't know.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 
You cannot reply to this message, because it is very, very old.

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

xsi3rr4x (31 views)
2014-04-15 18:08:23

BurntPizza (28 views)
2014-04-15 03:46:01

UprightPath (43 views)
2014-04-14 17:39:50

UprightPath (26 views)
2014-04-14 17:35:47

Porlus (43 views)
2014-04-14 15:48:38

tom_mai78101 (64 views)
2014-04-10 04:04:31

BurntPizza (124 views)
2014-04-08 23:06:04

tom_mai78101 (224 views)
2014-04-05 13:34:39

trollwarrior1 (190 views)
2014-04-04 12:06:45

CJLetsGame (198 views)
2014-04-01 02:16:10
List of Learning Resources
by SHC
2014-04-18 03:17:39

List of Learning Resources
by Longarmx
2014-04-08 03:14:44

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-05 13:51:37

Good Examples
by Grunnt
2014-04-03 15:48:46

Good Examples
by Grunnt
2014-04-03 15:48:37

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-01 18:40:51

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-01 18:40:34

Anonymous/Local/Inner class gotchas
by Roquen
2014-03-11 15:22:30
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!