• bram dingelstad :nb_flag:@gamedev.lgbt
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @Ferk hey, professional Godot developer here

    i’ve ran a lot of projects over the years: you rarely make code that runs in a way that these inefficiencies become a problem.

    in order for this to be the bottleneck, you need to run really efficient code already, which is what 99% of problems dont require

    its more of a non-issue unless you’re doing highly specific work :)

    yes, technically you can reduce overhead by compiling a GDExtension, but for most people this is overkill ✨

    • Octorine@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you sure this isn’t selection bias?

      Is it really that the the Godot approach is fast enough most of the time, or is it that everyone who needs perf has just decided to use something else.

    • Ferk@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the insight!
      I assume you are talking about compiling a GDExtension using C or some lower level language, right? not C#
      What I’m wondering is if it’d actually be more efficient to use C# than GDScript in Godot. Because I would have expected the opposite.

      • bram dingelstad :nb_flag:@gamedev.lgbt
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Ferk we’re using Rust with GDNative

        the reason not being performance, but language features (Rust makes it easy to have good safety guarantees)

        C# is overall more performant than GDScript, but it is rare that you get to use that performance in a way that it makes a measurable difference

        i always just tell people to work with what they know well and what makes them feel comfortable, thats the most important

        great part about godot: you can run these languages side by side ✨