Judging Java by Eclipse may not be fair as it is fairly bloated as IDEs go. Perhaps Eclipse vs Visual Studio might be more fair?
That said I Like C# as a language and with Java had unsigned primitives. I don't see it happening for the sake of compatibility. I can see stack objects happening eventually given I have been in a presentation at the London JUG where someone has actually been working on this already. I am not sure how far into the future it would likely be though. I think what is going into Java 8 is fairly well established. To be honest though. The core game development community seems standardised on C++. I mean if you are going to criticise Java for not having many good games I also don't really know any specifically written in C# .net. I know they must exist but I may not of heard of any of them. In both cases I imagine more games will have been written for mobile devices. JavaME and Android have plenty between them. The latest versions of Windows Mobile will no doubt have plenty examples of C# games. In the mean time the most popular/recognised games tend to be C++. On Jan 19, 11:14 am, "Ricky Clarkson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Compared to .NET Java has less predictable performance. For example, I wrote > a date chooser and my code used quite a lot of anonymous inner classes. The > first time the user used that part of the application there was a noticeable > delay due to classloading, that I moved to application startup time just so > that the user wouldn't see a delay. > > It was actually a pretty small delay, less than a second, but in the context > of an app that normally responds instantly it was visibly slow. > > As I understand it, .NET loads an assembly at a time, not a class at a time. > > It does generally 'seem' faster regarding GUI operations, which can be more > important than actual number-crunching speed. That applies to Mono too. Work > with Eclipse for a day then play with MonoDevelop and you'll probably notice > a striking difference in responsiveness. > > I have no idea whether MonoDevelop's responsiveness still applies when you > have very large projects open; nothing I've ever done in C# hit the 1000 line > barrier. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: clay <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:02:32 > To: The Java Posse<[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Sony's PlayStation Suite for Vita/Android > Chooses C#/Mono Exclusively. What's the Alternative? > > On Jan 18, 9:09 pm, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know what to tell you. Game developers by and large avoid > > Java. I think if you honestly want a good answer as to why, ask them. > > Thanks Josh. I think I figured this out. And I think I can articulate > this better than most game developers could (I don't think game devs > have thought as much about this issue or the JVM as I have): > > The most important missing feature is having easy to use, embeddable, > micro-VMs. Microsoft .NET doesn't have this, but the Mono guys made > their own implementation of the CLR with this as a primary concern. > There are no legal or technical obstacles stopping this from happening > on the JVM side, it's just no one has done it. > > Game developers want to target iOS, Android, and PlayStations. Those > devices do not and will not run traditional system-level Java. > Embeddable micro-VMs are the solution and they don't exist yet on the > JVM side. I really wish I had gone to grad school for this type of > stuff, because I think this is a hot project but it requires a > specialized set of skills to do well. > > The second issue is the programming language. Ideally, you support > multiple languages, but you still need a flagship language. Java, the > language, is behind the times. C#, the language, has incrementally > improved upon Java overall. However, there are other languages that > deliver even further incremental improvements. I don't think the game > development community is ready for the type theory, the deep > abstractions, and the radical nature of Haskell or Clojure. I think > the most promising candidate is the forthcoming Kotlin. It definitely > one ups Java/C# and doesn't require paradigm shifts and I'm hoping it > won't have the compilation speed penalty and runtime speed penalty > that Scala seems to have. > > What else do we want from Java: the super IDEs and the build tools. As > I explained earlier, the Java build tools are really at the leading > edge of the industry. And almost every dev I know that has used it > would pick IntelliJ any day over Visual Studio. > > But to resummarize an earlier point: I don't think runtime performance > is a problem with the JVM. Even without "unsafe" casting and memcpy > type tricks and the issues you raised, the JVM generally outperforms > both Microsoft's CLR and Mono. The two of you in this thread that > insist this is a problem are just not being reasonable. > > > Also, it isn't like anyone here dismisses the JVM. We just can't > > offer any compelling reason why game developers should choose it over > > alternatives. > > I can articulate some compelling reasons: > > - Kotlin is a better, more exciting, and more elegant language than > C#. > - Better IDEs and wider selection of IDEs. > - Better runtime performance. > - Better build tools and a wider choice (Maven, Gradle, SBT). > - A deeply meritocratic culture rather than one that is forever in > lock step behind a corporate despot. > > "Can you give an example of such code that would cease to work should > Java add unsigned ints?" > > I can't, but I haven't thought about this issue deeply. You may know > this issue better than I. > > "But yes, at least unsigned integer math is coming in Java 8, afaik." > > Where did you hear this? Do you have a link? I can't find this on > google. > > FYI, I remember during this last year, famous game programming expert > John Carmack posted on his Twitter about some unsigned integer corner > case that caused problems and said something to the effect of maybe it > wasn't a bad thing for Java to avoid them. I am unable to dig up the > exact quote/link at the moment. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. 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.
