Re: My thoughts on C# and gaming.

In article <OF2032864C.715FD0E8-ON882576B8.0074C671-882576B8.007602B1@playstation.sony.com>,
    [email protected]  writes:

> Richard Atwater Thomson wrote:
> > For some reason, even though C++ offers you tools in the standard
> > library (to say nothing of libraries like Loki, Boost, etc.) for
> > operating at a high level without sacrificing efficiency, people still
> > insist on operating at a low level.  We could discuss theories on why
> > this is the case [...]
> 
> You could discuss that, but that'd be discussing a straw man. The
> issue isn't low vs. high level. It's one of code transparency,
> ease of debugging, compile and link times, binary size, retaining
> control, reducing complexity, and all those other things that
> affect the real goal (if you are a commercial developer): shipping
> games that make as much money as possible, now as well as in the
> future.

I think you're reading more into my statement than was present.  All
the forces you mention are also in play, but in the scenarios I'm
talking about they aren't the deciding factor.

Shipping games that make as much money as possible is not a mandate
for low-level coding only.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
 <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

      Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
_______________________________________________
Sweng-Gamedev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.midnightryder.com/listinfo.cgi/sweng-gamedev-midnightryder.com