Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unvanquished Begins Landing C++11 Engine Rewrite

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Unvanquished Begins Landing C++11 Engine Rewrite

    Unvanquished Begins Landing C++11 Engine Rewrite

    Phoronix: Unvanquished Begins Landing C++11 Engine Rewrite

    While the open-source Unvanquished game's Daemon Engine began as a fork of the ioquake3 engine, it's morphed into a radically different and more advanced creation. As noted recently, the Unvanquished developers are in the process of overhauling the engine and rewriting significant portions of the code. That code is now beginning to land...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUyNzc

  • ciplogic
    replied
    C++ is a badly designed language, but C++ avoids many pitfalls of C by being a bit stronger type, generics and STL, and given code styles it can lead to a bit verbose yet strict and nice code.

    Leave a comment:


  • Annabel
    replied
    Originally posted by RMS
    C++ is a badly designed and ugly language. It would be a shame
    to use it in Emacs.

    The reason the GCC developers wanted to use it is for destructors
    and generics. These aren't much use in Emacs, which has GC and in
    which data types are handled at the Lisp level.
    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/e.../msg00518.html

    Leave a comment:


  • JS987
    replied
    Migrating GCC to C++ as implementation language:

    C++ is a standardized, well known, popular language.
    C++ is nearly a superset of C90 used in GCC.
    The C subset of C++ is just as efficient as C.
    C++ supports cleaner code in several significant cases.
    C++ makes it easier to write and enforce cleaner interfaces.
    C++ never requires uglier code.
    C++ is not a panacea but it is an improvement.
    http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion

    Leave a comment:


  • Annabel
    replied
    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    > not getting the xkcd reference
    >le meme arrows

    Originally posted by Larian
    And as we all know, EMACS is written in BASH. It's what God uses. He told me so himself.
    Bash is written in GNU Make

    Originally posted by ciplogic
    Otherwise they would use the best choice: Python, obviously.
    Python sucks, the best choice would be a pure declarative, functional logic programming language like Mercury

    Originally posted by clavko
    C++ is a safer language, is backward compatible
    C++ is not really more safe than C
    Backward compatible? just nope

    Originally posted by Akka
    modern c++ is a lot easier language than c
    Hahaha

    Originally posted by peppercats
    Because you can write C in C++
    Not really

    Leave a comment:


  • Daktyl198
    replied
    Originally posted by Larian View Post
    And as we all know, EMACS is written in BASH. It's what God uses. He told me so himself.
    > not getting the xkcd reference

    Leave a comment:


  • Larian
    replied
    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Of course, there's an EMACS command for that.
    And as we all know, EMACS is written in BASH. It's what God uses. He told me so himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daktyl198
    replied
    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    Real programmers use butterflies.
    Of course, there's an EMACS command for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • ciplogic
    replied
    Originally posted by gufide View Post
    Python is slow compared to binary compiled source code. That's not suitable for this king of project, which every frame is crutial.

    C++11 is less obfuscated than older C++ and C. I think it's a really good choice for a game.
    Python is not suitable for this "king" of project where every frame is "crutial" as much as there are solutions to overcome it (like Cython, ShedSkin, PyPy, etc.). Anyway, the idea was that people that contribute have something to say about the language to work with... people that don't, they shouldn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by siavashserver
    I guess that's because of flaky compiler support, specially MSVC.
    That's probably a big reason, too. MSVC doesn't even support the full C99 spec, at least until 2012 inclusive (that's the newest one I tried, and it gave errors when trying to build a project using some C99 features). I doubt that got fixed for 2013, let alone supporting C11.

    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Pfft, real men write the binary themselves. Amateurs.
    Real programmers use butterflies.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X