>
> I'm very disappointed to see Sony also 
> promote an all Microsoft and Microsoft only development ecosystem.
>

I reckon it comes down to two things: 1) Sony is 
notoriously proprietary and 2) Pareto principle. They can get to 80% of 
developers with 20% the cost. Go ahead and ask Google how easy it is to 
cater to multiple platforms. After several years, they still receive 
massive criticism for the performance of the device simulator. And 
remember, unlike Java, the C# language itself is an approved standard under 
ECMA/ISO, so you are not required to use 
Microsoft's proprietary implementation. That's why you can currently 
develop for iOS and Android devices, even if Microsoft makes no SDK 
available for these platforms (Xamarin does however).
 

> Obviously, Sony and Microsoft own the two big video game platforms in 
> the video game space. Obviously, the Microsoft end of things is based 
> on an all Microsoft toolset. I'm very disappointed to see Sony also 
> promote an all Microsoft and Microsoft only development ecosystem. I'm 
> also disappointed that no other alternative was able to win over Sony, 
> given that Sony and Microsoft are complete arch rivals in that space. 
>

If you want a modern, static language catering to high performance, then C# 
really is hard to beat. It has the best parts from Java but improves on it 
across the board. When it comes to game development, being able to work on 
unsigned types, use pointers, call native code, use stack based value types 
(structs), use out parameters (i.e. implement swap), compile AOT (fast 
launch), use SIMD instructions etc. is a big advantage. Those are some of 
the things I remember the Unity (Mono) developers talking about [
http://unity3d.com/unity/].

What would be a game good development platform language/runtime 
> combination that could beat both C/C++ and C#/Mono and support high 
> performance, low overhead console-type games? 
>

Perhaps some of the new languages like Go, but they will definitely need to 
embrace concurrency and interoperability, rather than try to define and 
demarcate the world as Java did by mandating a widget library, making JNI 
so bloody terrible etc.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/WtaJQR2apL4J.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

Reply via email to