why are people trying to use Java2D to make games?

[davedes]

HeroesGraveDev --

If somebody believes the Earth is flat, I guess there is no convincing them otherwise. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shut up about the Earth being round. Catch my drift?

Laziness has nothing to do with this equation. Ignorance and stubbornness, yes.



EDIT: I should note, Java2D isn't a bad library, in fact it's a really solid 2D rasterizer and has spawned a pretty incredible GUI toolkit. But if you aspire to learn modern graphics programming, or you want to spend more time making games and less time writing boilerplate, or you want a platform that will deliver reliable performance, then Java2D is not the best choice. Of course, at the end of the day, you can choose whatever platform you want -- be it Java2D, or LibGDX, or even Brainf**k.

[HeroesGraveDev]

HeroesGraveDev --

If somebody believes the Earth is flat, I guess there is no convincing them otherwise. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shut up about the Earth being round. Catch my drift?

Laziness has nothing to do with this equation. Ignorance and stubbornness, yes.

You don't have to shut up about it. But don't bother other people with your pointless argument (even if you are right).
If they want to believe the Earth is flat, they can. It doesn't effect anything for 99.9999% of people anyway.

EDIT: in response to your edit.

Thank you for seeing what I was really trying to get at:

You can't force other people to do things like you.

The use-existing-wheel vs. make-own-wheel argument does not effect making games. Just judge the game by the game itself, not by looking at how they were created.

[masteryoom]

How about from a 15 year old's point of view?

I am 15 and for me it is much easier to use Java2D to begin with, because, like a lot of people here have already stated, I can find simplistic, easy to follow answers to my problems with code that is easy to follow.

These libraries such as libGDX etc probably do have a ton of advantages, but the thought of having to write a lot of lines of code for the simple things is extremely daunting.

Counter-Argument:

Just like the time when I used XNA two years ago. The framework was solid and yes, I needed to write a couple more lines that necessary but after learning it once, I could do it. I'm sure these libraries are probably the same and are more than likely well worth looking into and using, but until they come with the support required by newbies( like me ) they won't be used by newbies, for now.

Bold:Um, no. Java 2d is not simplistic (at least swing isn't). It takes way to many lines to do anything

Completely off topic, but why do people use slick2d? It is deprecated, under managed and kind of plainly sucks.

Using MIDI to play music is like using SVG to render sprites. Don't! Make OGGs and stream them! And pre-render your sprites into an atlas while you're about it!

Cas

You can't change peoples minds really easily. If they choose to do it that way, you can just let them suffer.
[edit]
Just like @HeroesGraveDev said.
http://bit.ly/S60Mel

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[masteryoom]

Final thoughts on this thread

This thread is plainly a waste of time. You cannot change people's minds easily. So stop trying to.

[deepthought]

Yes I can! ( waves hand) these are not the droids you are looking for.

[Jimmt]

Uhh, masteryoom, you might want to know what you're talking about before you talk about it. Why is Java2D simple? Because it provides only basic features. Lines of code != simplicity. Slick2D may be a bit outdated but there is no way it is as bad as Java2D.

Swing is just about the easiest GUI library you'll ever use. It's easy - frame, panel, etc., pre-coded layouts. I mean, with libgdx, scene2d is about the same, but with tableLayout or TWL - you actually have to know the stuff.

Also, what is with you and copying HeroesGraveDev? First you mirror his project name and posts, now this.

[ctomni231]

This thread went downhill fast...

I have great respect for all computer languages. OpenGL, Java, JavaScript, C++, etc. There is one problem though...

None of these technologies were originally made for game creation. You heard me right... none of them. We are essentially using these technologies in an attempt to create games. There lies potential to create really good games out of Java2D, just like there lies great potential to create good games out of OpenGL, C, BASIC, or Python.

I, personally, would like to see a healthy community creating games, regardless of the platform. What people use to create those games is irrelevant. I am just happy that people are choosing Java to create these games, and in reality, that is what people on a "Java" forum is supposed to be promoting.

Remember this thread. Java has a lot of bad publicity from the other languages as it is. I think as a community, we owe quite a lot to the Java Programming language.

So let the Java2D people code, and stop tearing down our own sails...

[HeroesGraveDev]

Also, what is with you and copying HeroesGraveDev? First you mirror his project name and posts, now this.

It's because I'm so Awesome.

[Nate]

HeroesGraveDev, this is a forum. We come here to discuss things. If you don't like that, then leave. If you don't like a topic we are discussing, then don't post in the thread.

[sproingie]

No discussion of JavaFX?

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[princec]

Not a lot of experience of it anywhere yet - certainly no pro-level games made. It looks good at what it does but ultimately it's still a user interface paradigm rather than a game rendering one - it's there to replace Swing rather than raw Java2D blitting.

Cas

[teletubo]

The answer to this question is the exact same answer for the question that should bother all of this forum members:

"Why are people trying to use Java to make games?"


So what about we not bother trying to answer it?

[Mac70]

Why Java is good for games? Here are 4 (in my opinion most important) arguments:

1. Object-oriented programming (in my opinion this is advantage)
2. Advanced polymorphism
3. Write code once, develop anywhere
4. Code is easy to read and understand

[Jimmt]

Why Java is good for games? Here are 4 (in my opinion most important) arguments:

1. Object-oriented programming (in my opinion this is advantage) --> C++ also
2. Advanced polymorphism --> C++ also
3. Write code once, develop anywhere --> Yes
4. Code is easy to read and understand --> Ruby

Not to undermine my own language but it really is all preference. I like English because that's what I started out with.

[Riven]

Nothing good can come from this small derailment.

Ask a group of people using X, why it's good to use X and you get a biased discussion, where nobody learns anything.

[Nate]

JavaFX scares me. I haven't tried it at all, it's just by this time I expect Oracle to come up with things are bad. I could easily be wrong I suppose.

Re: biased discussion, certainly, it is the Internet after all. Hopefully people can see the bias from both sides and make their own decisions (or slightly educated guesses).

[Spasi]

it's there to replace Swing rather than raw Java2D blitting.

There's a Canvas node in JavaFX 2.2. I haven't used it yet, but it looks like there isn't anything you can do with Java2D that you can't do with JavaFX. Reference here. There's also support for image operations now.

So yeah, Java2D over OpenGL makes sense for people new to graphics. Java2D over JavaFX, not so much. You get better performance out of the box, nice effects, audio and video support, a very clean and sensible API, both retained and immediate mode rendering, a scenegraph that performs transformations, culling and render-caching the way it should.

[Orangy Tang]

JavaFX scares me. I haven't tried it at all, it's just by this time I expect Oracle to come up with things are bad. I could easily be wrong I suppose.

Likewise. It has too much of a 'second system syndrome' smell to me, where it's allegedly going to fix all the problems of both Swing and AWT, as well as having a scripting language and a gui tool, whilst simultaneously trying to be a flash-beater, Unity-beater and OpenGL-beater. Oh and it's internal to Oracle so it could implode and vanish without any warning.

Maybe it'll be good, but the odds aren't looking healthy.

[nsigma]

Oh and it's internal to Oracle so it could implode and vanish without any warning.

Here, here!  I'm not thinking about using it until it's open-sourced and an official part of the JDK.  It's no point learning nice and shiny new things if they're going to disappear before lunchtime.

.. whatever happened to the real slim shady? 

Why is Java2D simple? Because it provides only basic features.

Funniest thing I've read catching up on this thread - you're kidding right?    Java2D is probably the most featured library mentioned - that's why it's slow.  It's a general, all-purpose graphics library, so it's not a surprise that it can be outperformed by things that are more specialist.  What I've learnt from coding Praxis' software pipeline, and from using the (unfortunately defunct) PulpCore, is that even a specialised software renderer will often outperform Java2D over a limited range of features.

[sproingie]

JavaFX 2.0 does not have a scripting language, it is part of the JDK, it ships with all current JDKs and JREs on the big three platforms, and the source is in the openjfx tree in the openjdk repo.  Probably missing some video codecs because of IP bullpucky, but the rest is there.

[Best Username Ever]

I like English because that's what I started out with.

Terrible language.

[deepthought]

I agree. Instead, I use my vocal cords to communicate through phase shift keying.

[ReBirth]

It's even rare to see JavaFx games rather Java2D

I like English because that's what I started out with.

Terrible language.

Japanese FTW!

[JESTERRRRRR]

I'm a programmer, I avoid RL communication at all costs

[novasharp]

I know that I am personally using Java2D because I want to make a game that does not need any extra libraries. Sure its not too bad to add extra jars, but having natives gets a bit annoying. I tried using LWJGL and kept getting UnsatisfiedLinkErrors claiming wrong ELF type. No such thing with Java2D. Sure the Java2D api is a bit annoying, but all it takes is a little wrapper class (i.e. a Sprite class) and you never have to worry about it again. The main concern, and the one why I am considering switching to LibGDX is performance with a bunch of rotated images. It works nice and smoothly until I had 10 simultaneously rotating images, then it just started stuttering.

[Mac70]

In my opinion Java2d is for quick development, prototyping, tile-based games and everything with mostly static graphics without advanced graphical effects.

[davedes]

I know that I am personally using Java2D because I want to make a game that does not need any extra libraries. Sure its not too bad to add extra jars, but having natives gets a bit annoying. I tried using LWJGL and kept getting UnsatisfiedLinkErrors claiming wrong ELF type. No such thing with Java2D.

Something like LibGDX streamlines the process for you. They have a GUI tool where you select the folder to save your Eclipse project, and then when you open it in Eclipse it "Just Works."

Anyways... It's your funeral. At the end of the day, almost everybody who is serious about game development and has given both Java2D and LibGDX a try will not prefer to use Java2D. Not only is it less performant and more verbose, but it ports to less platforms and includes zero utilities that almost all games will need (game loops, GUI, input polling, bitmap fonts, asset management, texture atlases, animated sprites, particles, physics, tiled maps, or whatever).

[HeroesGraveDev]

At the end of the day, almost everybody who is serious about game development and has given both Java2D and an OpenGL binding a try will not prefer to use Java2D.

FIFY

(Btw, I accidentally bumped the appreciate button while trying to quote you. Enjoy the free medal. )

[Nate]

but having natives gets a bit annoying [snip] The main concern, and the one why I am considering switching to LibGDX is performance with a bunch of rotated images. It works nice and smoothly until I had 10 simultaneously rotating images, then it just started stuttering.

libgdx handles native loading for you, so you'll never have to deal with it. libgdx can display 50,000+ rotating sprites at 60fps on an average desktop computer -- your code must have been doing something terrible, such as loading a new image each frame.

[HeroesGraveDev]

but having natives gets a bit annoying [snip] The main concern, and the one why I am considering switching to LibGDX is performance with a bunch of rotated images. It works nice and smoothly until I had 10 simultaneously rotating images, then it just started stuttering.

libgdx handles native loading for you, so you'll never have to deal with it. libgdx can display 50,000+ rotating sprites at 60fps on an average desktop computer -- your code must have been doing something terrible, such as loading a new image each frame.

I think novasharp was referring to Java2D being slow rotating images.