Ask a Dev. Why deosn't he Program in C#

Also i used Lua As a examply for the fact, that it has been around for 15 years Only recently has it been used More often.

I can recall saying c# is bad. I said it is used mainly for makeing programs.

C++ is also used for programs, but in the game industry its the bigger hand, I belive i read this some where, i am not sure.

It said something like

"c# has a solid programm that moves forward, while c++ is able to bend and is more flexible in it's code and optoins"

I am not 100% where when or if i even read that. i May of got mixed up. Don't rant me if its wronge.

Before i learn c++, i will learn C#, after i know c# and c++, i will learn lua. I see a futer in all of those, in the industry.

And what i ment in that first post is, Rpgs racing and most other titles are running good, I have yet to see a good fps or TPS,

Qout from wikipedia

Criticism

Performance C# programs, like all programs written for the .NET and other virtual machine environments such as Java, tend to require more system resources than functionally similar applications that access machine resources more directlyNow that deosn't look good to run a game engine.


Now, i am sure C# will become popular if Mircorsoft Wants it to, It's alot easyer to learn than c++. Time will tell

leidegre:

I'd like to see a very thorough comparison between C++/C# not only regarding performance, but also looking at some language feats.

And what would be the use?  You'll always have bias and skewed results.  There are too many variables, and it's impossible to be rigorous enough to cover every aspect.  No matter what is published on the Internet, you'll still have people claiming C# is too slow for games, you'll still have people that think C++ is a dying/dead language.

Look at VS2008 support in XNA Game Studio.  There are FAQs and lots of threads about it here, but there are still new threads created several times a week asking the same questions.

Yeah, Pointless agrueing. Time will tell. Every one on this most likey sighned up to learn c#, there is your anser right here

Madodaz:

Ask a Dev. Why deosn't he Program in C#

I am already answered this question but I can do it again.

Our main Problem with C# is the missing support for any other platform then the PC. Xbox 360 doesn’t count for us as we can’t ship boxed SKUs so far. Therefore we simply have no other choice than using C++.

For sure from a game developers point of view the runtime could need some improvements. But we talk about details and not the managed environment in general.

Great,

Basicly only Xbox360 and Pc support Full  C# coded based games.

That isn't true. I've made games in C# using the Tao OpenGL library. It was quite easy. What you should be saying is that the XNA framework only supports PC and Xbox 360.

XNA framework only supports PC and Xbox 360- That was obvios,

So will My ps2 support A game based 100% on C#

Madodaz:

XNA framework only supports PC and Xbox 360- That was obvios,

That assertion may have been obvious, but the correction was still necessary. C# is a language like any other. It is up to a platform owner or its users to develop a compiler and run-time CLR for the platform. OS X and Linux, for example, have the Mono platform (which I believe is open source) for a compiler and CLR. So it is worth mentioning that C# does not instantly mean XNA framework.

So will My ps2 support A game based 100% on C#

I don't know. Depends on if somebody has made a compiler and runtime for the PS2. I'm going to guess no.

Nick Gravelyn:

When you make a blanket statement like "C# is sloooow in a game engine" I think it's perfectly valid to point out that that isn't always correct. Some games (like racing games) probably don't need as much CPU power as others and would be perfectly fine using C#. C++ is slightly faster, yes, but C# is by no means vastly slower.

  IIRC, Quake II took a 20% speed hit going from unmanaged to managed C++. I'd assume that the difference going to C# would be slightly more, because the C# compiler isn't as smart as the C++ compiler. The version of Quake II wasn't pure C++, though. The ID team did some cool stuff in assembly so the difference between the consumer app and the pure C++ version was roughly the difference between the pure C++ version and the managed code version.

  Now for the caveats. All this testing was done using the software rasterizer. The differences were a LOT less noticable using the OpenGL engine. Also, the hardware's gotten a lot more powerful. Quake II ran quite happily on a 300 MHz PIII. My 5 year old computer clocks in at 2.6 GHz, and it wasn't top of the line, back then. Also, most computers these days have 2-4 cores. Efficient multithreaded C# should clean the floor with single threaded C++ code, all other things being equal.

So, C++ is faster than C#. C++ with good assembly code in the right places is faster than C++. Good threading and decent algorithms are probably a better win than going from C# to C++, so unless you're doing a game which really stresses your machine, I wouldn't worry about it that much.

 

mpswaim:

  IIRC, Quake II took a 20% speed hit going from unmanaged to managed C++.

How was it ported? When was this done? How was the '20%' figure measured? Managed code has a lot of things that need to be taken advantage of and avoided that C++ doesn't. The methods of porting make a huge difference. Simply saying it was ported doesn't accurately describe whether they tried to do the quickest port or if they tried to actually re-write parts using a managed-code train of thought.

I'd assume that the difference going to C# would be slightly more, because the C# compiler isn't as smart as the C++ compiler.

How so?

The Quake.net port that everyone remembers is this one http://www.vertigosoftware.com/Quake2.htm. Nick I think you were still in diapers back in 2003 ;-) You can read the white paper.

"Quake II .NET, a port of the
C-language based engine to Visual C++ with a .NET managed heads-up display. We
did this to illustrate a point: one can easily port a large amount of C code to C++,
and then run the whole application as a managed .NET application using the
Microsoft Common Language Runtime (CLR) without noticeable performance delays. "

Though the engine compiles in C++ .net 2003 its not a port to C#. Its compiled with /CLR but its still full of 'new' in the C++ sense not the .Net sense. They exposed enough of the engine to add some fully managed extensions.

"Running Quake II.NET in the timedemo test indicates the managed
version performs about 85% as fast as the native version. The performance of the
managed version was acceptable and testers did not notice a difference between the
two versions."

This was back in 2003 and since it was a failry naive direct port I doubt any optimisation was done.

Bottom line I don't think it was a good representation back then, and even less so now.

 

Someone did do a c# port of Quake 1 http://forums.xna.com/46180/ShowThread.aspx#46180 - though no real details on how or performance.