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

Migrating away from Rust

deadmoney.gg

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 799 posts

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#61

Post by gh0stcat »

_QrE wrote: post #26

> I failed to fairly evaluate my options at the start of the project. The more projects I do, the more time I find that I dedicate to just planning things up front. Sometimes it's fun to just open a game engine and start playing with it (I too have an unfair bias in this area, but towards Godot [ https://godotengine.org/ ]), but if I ever want to build something to release, I start with a spreadsheet.

Do you think you needed to have those times to play around in the engine? Can a beginner possibly even know what to plan for if they don't fully understand the game engine itself? I am older so I know the benefits of planning, but I sometimes find that I need to persuade myself to plan a little less, just to get myself more in tune with the idioms and behaviors of the tool I am working in.

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#62

Post by akkad33 »

nu11ptr wrote: post #6

I did the same for my project and moved to Go from Rust. My iteration is much faster, but the code a bit more brittle, esp. for concurrency. Tests have become more important. Still, given the nature of what my project is (APIs and basic financial stuff), I think it was the right choice. I still plan to write about 5% of the project in Rust and call it from Go, if required, as there is a piece of code that simply cann…

Is calling Rust from Go fast? Last time I checked the interface between C and Go is very slow

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#63

Post by shmerl »

Using poor quality AI suggestions as a reason not to use Rust is a super weird argument. Something is very wrong with such idea. What's going to be next, avoiding everything where AI performs poorly?

Scripting being flexible is a proper idea, but that's not an argument against Rust either. Rather it's an argument for more separation between scripting machinery and the core engine.

For example Godot allows using Rust for game logic if you don't want to use GDScript, and it's not really messing up the design of their core engine. It's just more work to allow such flexibility of course.

The rest of the arguments are more in the familiarity / learning curve group, so nothing new in that sense (Rust is not the easiest language).

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#64

Post by Ygg2 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #42
Ygg2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with Rust is that almost everything is still at an alpha stage. Replace Rust with Bevy and language with framework, you might have a point. Bevy is still in alpha, it's lacking plenty of things, mainly UI and an easy way to have mods. As for almost everything is at an alpha stage, yeah. Welcome to OSS + SemVer. Moving to 1.x makes a critical statement. It's ready for wider use, and now we take backwards…

Unfortunately, it is a failing of many projects in the Rust sphere that they spend quite a lot longer in 0.x than other projects. Rust language and library features themselves often spend years in nightly before making it to a release build. You can also always go from 1.0 to 2.0 if you want to make breaking changes.

> Unfortunately, it is a failing of many projects in the Rust sphere that they spend quite a lot longer in 0.x than other projects

Yes. Because it makes a promise about backwards compatibility.

> Rust language and library features themselves often spend years in nightly before making it to a release build.

So did Java's. And I Rust probably has a fraction of its budget.

In defense of long nightly feature more than once, stabilizing some feature like negative impl and never types early would have caused huge backwards breaking changes.

> You can also always go from 1.0 to 2.0 if you want to make breaking changes.

Yeah, just like Python!

And split the community and double your maintenance burden. Or just pretend 2.0 is 1.1 and have the downstream enjoy the pain of migration.

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#65

Post by koakuma-chan »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #16

Rust is not good for video game gameplay logic. The ownership model of Rust can not represent the vast majority of allocations. I love Rust. It’s not for shipping video games. No Tiny Glade doesn’t count. Edit: don’t know why you’re downvoting. I love Rust. I use it at my job and look for ways to use it more. I’ve also shipped a lot of games. And if you look at Steam there are simply zero Rust made games in the top 2…

Isn't Veloren doing pretty good?

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#66

Post by jerf »

ziddoap wrote: post #15
je42 wrote: post #12

I wonder why Godot wasn't picked. Did I miss the points in the article?

I also would have liked to have seen the pro/con lists for each of the potential choices. I've been toying with the idea of making a 2d game that I've had on my mind for awhile, but have no game development experience, and am having trouble deciding where to start (obviously wanting to avoid the author's predicament of choosing something and having to switch down the line).

The key is, you gotta be pretty cold in the analysis. It's probably more important to avoid what you hate than to lean in too hard to what you love, unless your terminal goal is to work in $FAVE_LANG. Too many people claim they want to make a game, but their actions show that their terminal goal was actually to work in their favorite language. I don't care if your goal is just to work in your favorite language, I just think you need to be brutally honest with yourself on that front.

Probably the best thing in your case is, look at the top three engines you could consider, spend maybe four hours gather what look like pros and cons, then just pick one and go. Don't overestimate your attachment to your first choice. You'll learn more just in finishing a tutorial for any of them then you can possibly learn with analysis in advance.

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#67

Post by littlestymaar »

pjmlp wrote: post #55
justmarc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have totally disagree here. I don't even look at crate versions but the stuff works, very well. The resulting code is stable, robust and the crates save an inordinate amount of development time. It's like lego for high end, high performance code. With Rust and the crates you can build actual, useful stuff very quickly. Hit a bug in a crate or have missing functionality? contribute. Software is something that is alm…

They might be unsafe, but there is enough tooling to pick from 60 and 50 years of industrial use, approximately.

Well, on the flip side with C++ some of it hasn't been updated beyond very basic maintenance and you can't even understand the code if you are just familiar with more modern C++…

Re: Migrating away from Rust

#68

Post by bigstrat2003 »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #27
ivanjermakov wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More surprising part for me is not migrating from Rust/Bevy, but migrating _to_ C#/Unity. Although points mentioned in the post are quite valid.

Where would you migrate to?

Personally, literally anything except Unity. The fact that they tried to retroactively change terms on developers means that it will be a long time before I feel comfortable trusting they won't try it again.
Post reply on HN