Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

jonathanwhiting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 288 posts

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#51

Post by quotemstr »

enricotr wrote: post #50
quotemstr wrote: post #33

Plenty of people cycle on a fixie too. So what? C, especially modern C, does provide metaprogramming and abstraction facilities. In practice, you can even get things like the "defer" construct from other languages: https://lwn.net/Articles/934679/ The question isn't "Can I write a game in C?". Yes, of course you can, and it's not even that painful. The question is "Why would you?", and then "Why would you brag about…

"Practically speaking" means nothing. Use "from my confused point of view", instead.

If GDB could switch its C codebase to compiling as C++ without major surgery, it's close enough.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#52

Post by etrvic »

torlok wrote: post #20

I write mostly like I would in C, but use C++ features as needed. It ends up looking similar to Rust if you squint. All these "I write games in C" people complain about C++ features, and then end up reimplementing virtual interfaces manually with struct headers or massive switch statements, just to feel better about themselves. Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by h…

I feel like, for me, it’s that I am more familiar with writing in C and switching to C++ seems rather difficult. So, sure I am reimplementing features that already exist in anoter language, it just so happens in this case is C++. Why not use python if you want to avoid reimplementing the wheel as much as possible. And sure python is not suited for game development but I just wanted to make a point with it. I think in the end ising a language you are most familiar with results in the most amount of enjoyable coding.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#53

Post by krapp »

torlok wrote: post #20

I write mostly like I would in C, but use C++ features as needed. It ends up looking similar to Rust if you squint. All these "I write games in C" people complain about C++ features, and then end up reimplementing virtual interfaces manually with struct headers or massive switch statements, just to feel better about themselves. Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by h…

>Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by hand.

I feel like if you need to implement modern language features, you shouldn't be using C. The entire point of C is to not be modern.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#54

Post by 9rx »

vascocosta wrote: post #45
pjmlp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language is called Go, golang is the website domain.

I know, but I often use Golang for two reasons: 1. avoids confusion, no matter how unlikely it is in a context like HN, and 2. search engine "findability".

> 1. avoids confusion, no matter how unlikely it is in a context like HN

Who would be confused by "Go", but not "Rust" and "Zig", which are also common English words not usually associated with programming languages?

> 2. search engine "findability".

What kind of search engine are you using in 2026 that isn't capable of understanding context?

And where one is still using some weird antique thing like a steampunk character, "C" is going to be the least findable, yet it didn't receive the same treatment. Why is that?

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#55

Post by ninkendo »

pansa2 wrote: post #41
torlok wrote: post #20

I write mostly like I would in C, but use C++ features as needed. It ends up looking similar to Rust if you squint. All these "I write games in C" people complain about C++ features, and then end up reimplementing virtual interfaces manually with struct headers or massive switch statements, just to feel better about themselves. Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by h…

Yeah, you could argue that choosing C is just choosing a particular subset of C++. The main difference from choosing a different subset, e.g. “Google C++” (i.e. writing C++ according to the Google style guide), is that the compiler enforces that you stick to the subset.

C's string handling is so abominably terrible that sometimes all people really need is "C with std::string".

Oh, and smart pointers too.

And hash maps.

Vectors too while we're at it.

I think that's it.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#56

Post by direwolf20 »

randomtoast wrote: post #47
torlok wrote: post #20

I write mostly like I would in C, but use C++ features as needed. It ends up looking similar to Rust if you squint. All these "I write games in C" people complain about C++ features, and then end up reimplementing virtual interfaces manually with struct headers or massive switch statements, just to feel better about themselves. Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by h…

I’ve seen this play out a lot. People say they “write games in C” and then quietly rebuild half of C++ anyway with vtables in structs or giant switch statements, just without the compiler helping. That’s fine if it makes you happier, but it’s not obviously simpler or safer. Also, C++ compile times are mostly a self-inflicted wound via templates and metaprogramming, not some inherent tax you pay for having virtual fun…

It's important that you do these things yourself before you utilise the compiler to do them for you, so you have real understanding.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#57

Post by direwolf20 »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #40

C has very low entry level, providing that you have some knowledge about memory management. When, as a Java developer, I had to quickly deliver some exchange connector using given .h and .so, I chose C, because C++ had too high entry level. If C is a sharp knife, C++ is a rotating pell post full of sharp knives. You can cut yourself even if you think you're safe. But I find string management in C awful and would like…

That's the neat thing about C++. You don't have to use any of it that you don't want to.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#58

Post by tomcam »

torlok wrote: post #20

I write mostly like I would in C, but use C++ features as needed. It ends up looking similar to Rust if you squint. All these "I write games in C" people complain about C++ features, and then end up reimplementing virtual interfaces manually with struct headers or massive switch statements, just to feel better about themselves. Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by h…

> just to feel better about themselves.

Mindread much?

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#59

Post by direwolf20 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #21
drnick1 wrote: post #18

Literally thousands of games have been written in C, and all graphics APIs (OpenGL, Vulkan, DX) are C APIs, so it isn't weird at all. All major game engines are also written in C/C++.

DirectX is C++ (technically a set of COM interfaces) and most game engines are also C++. Unlike, say, Linux programming where C is the standard, almost all games have been written exclusively in C++ for a long time now, probably three decades.

COM was designed to be compatible with C. Linux games are also often written in C++. The ones written in C are just old.

Re: I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

#60

Post by sandpaper26 »

randomtoast wrote: post #47
torlok wrote: post #20

I write mostly like I would in C, but use C++ features as needed. It ends up looking similar to Rust if you squint. All these "I write games in C" people complain about C++ features, and then end up reimplementing virtual interfaces manually with struct headers or massive switch statements, just to feel better about themselves. Writing games in C is not harder, you just have to implement modern language features by h…

I’ve seen this play out a lot. People say they “write games in C” and then quietly rebuild half of C++ anyway with vtables in structs or giant switch statements, just without the compiler helping. That’s fine if it makes you happier, but it’s not obviously simpler or safer. Also, C++ compile times are mostly a self-inflicted wound via templates and metaprogramming, not some inherent tax you pay for having virtual fun…

This reads like an LLM generated response that simply restates the comment it's replying to
Post reply on HN