Why I Write Games in C

Post by crafn » Sat, Jan 09, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

hellofunk wrote: post #132

crafn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's partly true. However, you do get rid of the complexity you never wanted in the first place. For me this is OOP, RAII, C++ allocators, exceptions, references, vtables (see my post about runtime recompiling), templates (mostly), C++ standard library (I'd have to write my own vector for fast compilation. I'd have to write my own hash map to get contiguous storage (IIRC)) C is by no means optimal, but it's still o…

I really like this idea of using C as a main language, but when you mention writing your own vector and hash map implementations (and undoubtedly many other fundamental tools that are otherwise provided for you by STL), doesn't that get quite time-consuming to re-invent the wheel in those areas that it's great to have a wheel already there for you?

Post by hellofunk » Sat, Jan 09, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #137

adrusi wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the first few episodes of Casey Muratori's Handmade Hero series where he implements an extremely simple hot code reloading system in C (actually C++, but he doesn't use almost any C++ features, certainly not vtables).

if you don't want to watch the video, here is a basic overview tldw; of the technique: on every run of the game loop(usually every frame), reload a dynamically linked module (dll for windows, .so for linux), which contains the actual code you want to run every frame. The function you then invoke from the module must be passed the entire block of memory allocated for the game state. You then just recompile the dll/so…

Post by hellofunk » Sat, Jan 09, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #124

raverbashing wrote: post #6

I understand the want for simplicity in C (and Go gets closer, but has its issues), however, it seems in the end it drags you down. Just having the C++ ability to have objects doing things is very helpful. But yeah, C++ has the ability to get very complicated But it's your choice to have "complicated C++". Limit yourself to some functionalities and it's much more manageable. Use basic STL and keep it simple (also C++…

>The ability to have objects doing things C-structs work fine. In my experience, for things like games, C-structs are capable of doing everything you need objects to do. The lack of polymorphism and other OO stuff, makes C code easier to reason about and maintain.

Post by jbeja » Sat, Jan 09, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

jb1991 wrote: post #105

>Even more than that I care about the speed of the compiler. I am not a zen master of focus, and waiting 10+ seconds is wasteful, yes, but more importantly it breaks my flow. I flick over to Twitter and suddenly 5+ minutes are gone. Quick suggestion, has really helped me: take that 10 or 20 seconds waiting for compilation, and stare out a window. This gives your eyes much needed break from focusing on a computer moni…

Post by crafn » Sat, Jan 09, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

je42 wrote: post #138

crafn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's partly true. However, you do get rid of the complexity you never wanted in the first place. For me this is OOP, RAII, C++ allocators, exceptions, references, vtables (see my post about runtime recompiling), templates (mostly), C++ standard library (I'd have to write my own vector for fast compilation. I'd have to write my own hash map to get contiguous storage (IIRC)) C is by no means optimal, but it's still o…

- OOP you only get if you use it. - RAII you only get if you use it. - exceptions you only get if you enable them. - references. no overhead. - vtables. you only get them if you need them. - templates. no overhead runtime. - C++ standard library. you only get it if you need it. - what's wrong with vector ? hash map ?