[gameprogrammer] Re: C# vs C++
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:37:43 -0800
oh and if you are looking for multiplatform support in your game
programming, you might check out SDL.
it's meant for that kind of thing and can be pretty neat (:
http://www.libsdl.org/
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> well, i dont have any specific numbers but...
>
> C# is deffinately fast enough to make some games (chess for instance hah!)
>
> but the more complicated the game, the more an issue speed will become
> obviously :P
>
> I wouldn't use C# to make a game personally but people do it! (check out
> http://einfall.blogspot.com/)
>
> i think XNA is C#? i could be wrong tho.
>
> anyhow, if you program in C++ it's easier to port your game to other
> platforms - such as iphone, DS, Wii, 360, etc.
>
> And well, mono makes C# possible but do they have directx support?
>
> I would argue that in the grand scheme of things, C++ programming is far
> better for multiplatform development since every system / operating system
> basically has a C++ compiler, but .net support is much more limited.
>
> my 2 cents anyhow! (:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Edilson Vasconcelos de Melo Junior <
> dirso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I worked with C# last year and I just loved it!! I worked with C/C++ since
>> 98 and I was a huge fan (still do), but C# because of mone and .net
>> framework looks like a pretty good solution for cross plataform programming.
>> How slower a C# Game Engine could be than a C++ one? I worked developing a
>> Google Earth alike commercial software and it works still pretty fast, but I
>> heard too much noise about C# getting too slow for those kind of
>> applications… Would it be just slower at loading time or the execution also
>> sucks? Does anyone had any similar experiences?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dirso.
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S.: If anyone knows a paper about the performance discussion, I would be
>> glad to read.
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
