about Id Tech4

[xav1r]

That's an old debate, right? Some people say that C++ is the only way to go nowadays, while others say you can do everything in plain C without needing the object based thing from C++.

[Dragonlord]

If somebody likes C or C++ more that's definitely a question of taste but from a technical point of view the two are similar. Granted some crap like templates or STL you should not use in GameDev but aside from that I don't see much of a reason why it should be bad to move over to C++.

[curaga]

It's mostly just that I very much prefer C to C++ and so have been able to muck around tech3, but won't be able so much with 4.

[Dragonlord]

I don't think this should be much of a show stopper.

[Irritant]

Yeah the C/C++ issue isn't a problem.

I'm more curious as to what the engine will have to offer. Alot of features have already found their way into opensourced engines already, so I doubt you'd see alot of projects switching to the engine, but probably more of a "cobbling" of the features they like out of it into their own.

[xav1r]

Yeah the C/C++ issue isn't a problem.

I'm more curious as to what the engine will have to offer. Alot of features have already found their way into opensourced engines already, so I doubt you'd see alot of projects switching to the engine, but probably more of a "cobbling" of the features they like out of it into their own.

Well, probably devs will update id tech 4 with more modern features like like tesselation or whatever you spell that, remove the 60 fps cap it has by default, maybe work on the megatexture if it includes some of it. Theres room for lots of features to add.

[Irritant]

Well, probably devs will update id tech 4 with more modern features like like tesselation or whatever you spell that, remove the 60 fps cap it has by default, maybe work on the megatexture if it includes some of it. Theres room for lots of features to add.

Agreed, I was speaking more from the perspective of existing projects looking to improve their engine. I'm sure something similar to the IOQ3 project will exisit for tech4.

[Dragonlord]

This is anyways not how it works there. Most AAA engines changes over time quite a bit. If it's downwards compatible, okay, but don't expect this to be the case. But attaching a C++ System to a C System is easier than the other way round.

[Svartalf]

That's an old debate, right? Some people say that C++ is the only way to go nowadays, while others say you can do everything in plain C without needing the object based thing from C++.

C++ enforces things and makes it easier to code.

You can do a substantive portion of C++'s OO stuff in C, though you have some odd sharp edges when you do it. Many things aren't automatic like they are in C++. It actually requires more discipline to code it that way than with C++ and moreover you end up with something that may not be as fast as the C++ code in many cases.

You can code C++ code that is faster and easier to maintain than C, but it requires nearly as much discipline to code OO in C to do it.

The biggest complaint I have with C++ development in general is that many tend to over apply OO development. In C++, you should really, really only apply as much OO as is realistically needed for your project. Templates are fine, but you shouldn't make everything a template. Abstraction is fine, but you shouldn't be making tons and tons of wrapper classes that serve little purpose past data encapsulation unless you NEED the encapsulation. (In many, many situations, the dev absolutely did NOT need it.) There's tons of more examples.

[Svartalf]

But attaching a C++ System to a C System is easier than the other way round.

No kidding. (Try to use a templated class inside of C... Good LUCK!! )