Hacker News Reader

Comment by dustbunny | Hacker News Reader

Writing C# in godot is a bad choice. Use GDScript and directly write c++ as a module. Skip "HD extension" completely. Godots build system is easy enough to use. Just add new classes to the engine using c++ if you don't want to use GDScript. The GDScript workflow is honestly great. Using C# is like the worst of all worlds.

View on HN

GDScript is not very maintainable as the code base grows. It lacks proper refactoring tools (e.g. the ones from Jetbrains Rider), static type checking, flexible object system and many 3rd party libraries which might be needed

My main point is: if GDScript isn't good enough, go straight to c++ directly in the Engine.

I won't even get into how big of projects I've written in GDScript successfully.

I don't want to do manual memory management and pointer handling

I don't want to have any sort of undefined behavior

I want to have quick code reload button in the editor

I want to still rely of the engine official documentation with examples like it is with GDScript and C#

You likely won't need to do manual memory management nor think about undefined behavior. If your writing basic c++ to handle the simulation in a game, it's going to be pretty orthodox and these problems likely won't manifest.

The purpose of recommending c++ here is:

If GDScript is too slow, reach directly for C++.

I'm specifically recommending GDScript over C# for ease of use and c++ over C# for performance.

I don't like C++.

It's very difficult to me, I generally stick to high level stuff , C#, JavaScript, Python, Dart, etc.

If you can code in C#, how is C++ difficult? Are pointers and the stl that difficult?

Not denigrating, genuine question.

One word.

Headers.

That's just the start. The C++ build system and package managers are the stuff if nightmares. Modern languages are significantly easier to use.

Don't get me wrong, if you offer a job with a 200k base salary and give me 6 months to learn C++ I'll do it. But I won't enjoy it, and I definitely won't do it as a hobby.

If you use an existing template (and are willing to use scons) GDExtension doesn't really have the standard build problems of rigging everything up with CMake/etc in my experience. The template is set up to handle the "set up the build" problem for you. Still have the header problem though cannot deny that one.

Java was designed to make fun of C++, then C# was designed to make fun of Java, so you're missing two layers of fun.

I can tolerate Java. I've worked a Java dev role recently.

I think it's overly verbose and probably has a lot of unneeded legacy stuff, but in terms of making money so I can afford donuts, it's not bad.

My personal favorite language is probably Dart, but it's basically useless outside of Flutter and I don't have faith in Google to keep Flutter going.

I don't like low level programming. My dream language is literally an LLM that processes a markdown document where I sorta just describe what I want to happen. With options to call defined functions in a normal programing language

If I had money ( VC money) I'd be working on this.

I write mostly backend stuff for a living, big chunk of it in Node/TS but also C# with modern .NET. I also have to dabble with Unity and Unreal both for work and a hobby project. I technically learned C++ in uni but really, I hate every single second I have to spend doing Unreal Engine work. I genuinely despise how obsolete and hard to write C++ is compared to modern languages. It didn't bother me in university because that was all I knew at the time but it's hard to justify existence of header files today. Add macros everywhere, really bad compilation errors, really hard to read syntax with a lot of unnecessary bloat and you get something that is just not likable. I'm sure you can get used to it given enough time spent in that ecosystem, but I can tell you as someone writing 4 different languages on day to day basis, C++ is difficult, and it's not because of pointers.

Yeah that's why GDScript is great.

You only dabble in the c++ for the sliver of the project that needs it. 90% of game development is animating stuff and user interface development. GDScript is great for that.

You're asking if going from a high level language to a low level language on steroids is difficult?

Pointers, manual memory management, and the design by committee standard library are not fun.

Problem is, GDScript still doesn't have at least a JIT, and the whole GDextensions boilerplate seems more complicated than it needs to be.

"not having a JIT" is not a problem, it's you speculating that a JIT will improve performance, the real problem is "GDScript has poor performance", which in this context (me saying C# in godot sucks) is you speculating that C#'s performance is better than GDScripts. Do you have any data to back that claim up? Like real world data from a real product? Or are you just speculating with vibes?

If performance is a concern, skip C# and go straight to c++. Now your ripping at max speed with the smallest binary! That's my whole point. GDScript + c++ is my point. Ditch C# it's not worth the squeeze.

Some people like nice tooling with performance.

Interpreter code is never faster than a dynamic compiler, otherwise what about doing games in Python?

As mentioned on my comment, GDextension experience kind of sucks.

Lots of excellent games are written in Python, Lua, JavaScript and GDScript. These abstract criticisms are just that, abstract.

I'm offering real practical advice from experience of having worked on real projects.

I'll make it real clear:

GDScript & c++ > C#

Are there technical reasons to prefer GDScript over C#?

GDScript is undoubtedly better integrated in the engine, but I would have expected C# compare more favorably in larger projects than the game jam sized projects I have made.

Performance is one issue with C#: https://sampruden.github.io/posts/godot-is-not-the-new-unity...

I don't see how this article could possibly support the argument that C# is slower than GDScript

It compares several C# implementations of raycasts, never directly compares with GDScript, blames the C# performance on GDScript compatibility and has an strike-out'ed section advocating dropping of GDScript to improve C# performance!

Meanwhile, Godot's official documentation[1] actually does explicitly compare C# and GDScript, unlike the the article which just blames GDScript for C#'s numbers, claiming that C# wins in raw compute while having higher overhead calling into the engine

[1]: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/about/faq.html#doc-fa...

My post could have been a bit longer. It seems to have been misunderstood.

I use GDScript because it’s currently the best supported language in Godot. Most of the ecosystem is GDScript. C# feels a bit bolted-on. (See: binding overhead) If the situation were reversed, I’d be using C#. That’s one technical reason to prefer GDScript. But you’re free to choose C# for any number of reasons, I’m just trying to answer the question.

At least in my case, I got curious about the strength of /u/dustbunny's denouncement of Godot+C#.

I would have have put it as a matter of preference/right tool with GDScripts tighter engine integration contrasted with C#'s stronger tooling and available ecosystem.

But with how it was phrased, it didn't sound like expressing a preference for GDScript+C++ over C# or C#++, it sounded like C# had some fatal flaw. And that of course makes me curious. Was it a slightly awkward phrasing, or does C# Godot have some serious footgun I'm unaware of?

Makes sense! I think dustbunny said it best: C# is “not worth the squeeze” specifically in Godot, and specifically if you’re going for performance. But maybe that’ll change soon, who knows. The engine is still improving at a good clip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com