Comment by gpm
9 months ago
I know rust, I don't know game development (I've dabbled slightly). If I choose to build a game I either need to make it work in rust* or I need to learn a new language (Unity -> C#, Unreal -> blueprints, Godot -> gdscript).
So your advice to "just use Unity/Unreal/Godot" is the opposite of your advice "you should stick with what you know" in my case. I suspect the former is good advice, and the latter is therefore wrong.
* For the sake of argument, we can pretend I only know rust. In reality I know a fair number of other languages as well, but the list doesn't happen to include C# or "random game engine specific scripting language", which seems to be the options if we're going with an established engine for big 3d games.
This falls in the "you know that what you know isn't enough to build the thing" bucket, presumably. Even if you're a Rust expert, do you know how to manage game asset content pipelines? Sound and music? Have you done graphics programming at all in Rust? How are you going to store levels in your game, and how are you going to make them? How are you doing multiplayer? etc...
You're going to have to learn something new, and it's a bit of a judgment call, but picking up C# or gdscript given that you already know programming should be straightforward compared to re-implementing all of those things yourself in Rust.
Unless, of course, you do know a bunch of great Rust game development libraries that solve all those problems--in which case yeah, building a game in Rust might be the best choice. It's not impossible!
> but picking up C# or gdscript given that you already know programming should be straightforward compared to re-implementing all of those things yourself in Rust.
Right, this is practically my point. I suspect that the tools available from those languages mean that learning one of them would more than pay for itself in the course of developing a (single) game. Many many times over really.
Like, yes, I've dealt with both sound, basic graphics programming (though I'd need to learn a bit more to make a modern looking 3d game), networking, ... in rust. If I had to program my sound system and graphics engine from scratch myself I'd do it in rust (and I believe I'd be more productive in rust than I'd be in <other language> while doing so). But I don't have to do everything from scratch, and the best not-from-scratch versions aren't in rust, and the cost of switching to something I don't know just isn't that high.
Also OP is definitely right that rust has some anti-features that would be pain points for game development.
Perhaps the more appropriate advice is : Use the right tool for the job.
Use C++ for writing a high performance library or a database engine.
Use Go or Java for writing a server.
Use C for writing a kernel module.
Use shell scripts for automation.
Use python for trying out ML ideas or heavier duty scripts.
Use Rust for ... I'm not quite sure what it's the right tool for yet. I suspect it's trying to become the right tool for all of the above and not succeeding much in practice.
> a high performance library or a database engine
> a server
Rust is a great tool for these. The focus on performance and reliability (versus fast iteration) is a perfect fit for these domains specifically.
Server, I think you could be right.
Database engine, no way. Look at the internals of modern ones. Very very intricate pointer based data structures that you'll pull your hair out replicating with Rust.
Again, it's not like it's impossible. You can certainly accomplish it by treating it like a puzzle but using the right tool will have better results.
Use Rust if crashes or memory bugs are not an option. For everything wasm, Rust is much more pleasant with good libraries than the competition.
Wasm seems more convincing to me than the magical 'no crashes or bugs' promise.
Here's my wasm use case: tell me how I can use Rust.
I have a command line tool written in C that ..say.. takes strings and outputs strings.
How would I go about making a usable REPL out of this in Rust and wasm without rewriting the tool?
1 reply →
It's C++ replacement just not yet there for game dev (maybe never for game dev)
A C++ replacement must have really strong and seamless C++ interop to be considered by anyone currently using C++. You can't have a C++ replacement by ignoring existing C++ users and libraries, no matter how good the the language is.
Swift from Apple and Carbon from Google are stronger contenders at this point.
5 replies →
Learning a new language is basically trivial relative to the effort of bootstrapping everything yourself to compensate for a lacking ecosystem, or the effort of banging your head against the fundamental unsuitability of a tool for a job.
Anyone who's learned one or two languages should be able to pick up the basics of any of the standard ones pretty much instantaneously.
Exactly