171–180 of 996 posts
In my experience, fundamentally when you're starting a software project, you need to make a strong up-front decision between two things: 1. I am using technology in order to build this thing. 2. I am building this thing in order to use this technology. Developers often fall in the (2) camp but don't admit it. There's an allure to using the new, sexy tech that will solve all their problems, whether that's Rust, Kubern…
> I'd argue as far as maintainability being the wrong value for indie games, as what we should strive for is iteration speed. That seems to be the crucial point. Rust is optimized for writing complex systems software in large teams. That’s not a great fit for a small team hacking on something that is at least in part an art project. You wouldn’t choose something like Ada for that either.
In my experience, fundamentally when you're starting a software project, you need to make a strong up-front decision between two things: 1. I am using technology in order to build this thing. 2. I am building this thing in order to use this technology. Developers often fall in the (2) camp but don't admit it. There's an allure to using the new, sexy tech that will solve all their problems, whether that's Rust, Kubern…
I know rust, I don't know game development (I've dabbled slightly). If I choose to build a game I either need to make it work in rust* or I need to learn a new language (Unity -> C#, Unreal -> blueprints, Godot -> gdscript). So your advice to "just use Unity/Unreal/Godot" is the opposite of your advice "you should stick with what you know" in my case. I suspect the former is good advice, and the latter is therefore w…
Use C++ for writing a high performance library or a database engine.
Use Go or Java for writing a server.
Use C for writing a kernel module.
Use shell scripts for automation.
Use python for trying out ML ideas or heavier duty scripts.
Use Rust for ... I'm not quite sure what it's the right tool for yet. I suspect it's trying to become the right tool for all of the above and not succeeding much in practice.
> I'd argue as far as maintainability being the wrong value for indie games, as what we should strive for is iteration speed. That seems to be the crucial point. Rust is optimized for writing complex systems software in large teams. That’s not a great fit for a small team hacking on something that is at least in part an art project. You wouldn’t choose something like Ada for that either.
Rust is not antithetical to iteration-based programming, it just makes you write a lot of heavy boilerplate to explicitly support that kind of style. The flip side of that is once the 'iteration'/'prototyping' phase is over, you can actually refactor the prototype into high-quality production code, instead of either throwing it away altogether and rewriting it from scratch (spoiler alert: this doesn't really happen m…
> The problem you're having is only a problem because you haven't tried hard enough. You just need to read another 50,000 word fasterthanlime essay. Then you'll not have problems any more. > That being said, there is an overwhelming force in the Rust community that when anyone mentions they're having problems with Rust the language on a fundamental level, the answer is "you just don't get it yet, I promise once you g…
>> The problem you're having is only a problem because you haven't tried hard enough. And it actually does work that way with Haskell, in my experience. There's a big hill to get over where you flail against the type system, IO monad and all, and then you realize that, while Haskell's type system isn't perfect, being able to say Num t => (t -> b) -> [t] -> [b] is really pretty powerful, and being able to search for f…
But this article is seeming about someone that has put in the time, has written a lot of Rust, and now says, it wasn't really worth it.
> The problem you're having is only a problem because you haven't tried hard enough. You just need to read another 50,000 word fasterthanlime essay. Then you'll not have problems any more. > That being said, there is an overwhelming force in the Rust community that when anyone mentions they're having problems with Rust the language on a fundamental level, the answer is "you just don't get it yet, I promise once you g…
>> The problem you're having is only a problem because you haven't tried hard enough. And it actually does work that way with Haskell, in my experience. There's a big hill to get over where you flail against the type system, IO monad and all, and then you realize that, while Haskell's type system isn't perfect, being able to say Num t => (t -> b) -> [t] -> [b] is really pretty powerful, and being able to search for f…
This article describes almost exactly why I think gradual typing is actually a good thing. Type checkers shouldn't get in the way of your code compiling. Yes, the language has to be designed with this property from the beginning. Yes, you should always enforce complete checking in CI. But you should also be able to try half-baked ideas.
> Type checkers shouldn't get in the way of your code compiling. I don't get it, what's the point of type checking if not to reject invalid programs? The point of a type system isn't simply to add annotations to a programmer (and some type systems can omit them entirely) but to define the subset of programs that are correct within the set of all the programs that can be expressed. I understand (and have used in produ…
Sometimes, it's useful to bypass these things for a prototype and you don't care if it crashes on any edge case. This is why typescript is so popular on the web - you can quickly prototype something with JS, then once you find the right solution, add types and productionize the code
> I'd argue as far as maintainability being the wrong value for indie games, as what we should strive for is iteration speed. That seems to be the crucial point. Rust is optimized for writing complex systems software in large teams. That’s not a great fit for a small team hacking on something that is at least in part an art project. You wouldn’t choose something like Ada for that either.
Rust is not antithetical to iteration-based programming, it just makes you write a lot of heavy boilerplate to explicitly support that kind of style. The flip side of that is once the 'iteration'/'prototyping' phase is over, you can actually refactor the prototype into high-quality production code, instead of either throwing it away altogether and rewriting it from scratch (spoiler alert: this doesn't really happen m…
I've run into this in a side project I'm working on, where my indecision over which ownership models are actually workable in the API to satisfy the needs I have means almost all of the coding is spent just proving I can get an ownership model working over having a skeleton code that can do something. And still, even as lacking as functionality as this codebase is, swapping to a new ownership model takes several minutes of coding. Trying to do this kind of exploration on a codebase that has real functionality would mean spending hours of change just to move some property from here to there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that just Swift/Kotlin?
The problem with languages is they don't compose. Iow, one missing feature needed automatically invalidates the language entirely. Swift is targeted at Apple platforms and cross platform is an after thought. Kotlin targets JVM and while it is cool in concept, I hate it as a user (and Kotlin native isn't near as mature). If were considering something else at this stage I'd probably put my time into F#, but even it has…
(me not knowing might be the ignorant bliss that allows me to just do productive things in them regardless)
Edit: I understand from the updated comment
I've long accepted that no one language can offer all of the language features I'd want, but I also question if I'd even want that language if I got it
My impression of Rust is that it's a very opinionated language that wants everybody to program in a specific way that emphasizes memory safety above everything. That's a good idea, I think, for the systems programming use cases that it was intended for. I don't see that as a particularly useful thing to value for game development. The part in the article about the Rust borrow checker constantly forcing refactors soun…
IMO it’s not opinionated enough. Golang for example doesn’t let you customize go fmt, while Rust does. Rust also has many ways to do things in general (mod.rs vs name_of_folder.rs for example) and seems to not want to provide a useful baseline for most projects via its standard library (unlike Golang). But to go back to our subject: Rust is a great language and that’s all you need. I wish I could use it with unity.