CLR Binary

[martinsm]

Yes, intrisics also generate native code, so that means they are not allowed in pure CLR binary.

CLR code is not significantly slower than plain C/C++. It is faster in one instances (memory allocation/deallocation), or slower in other. It heavily depends on usage. To say it is significantly slower than plain C/C++ ir narrow minded statement.

[Julio Jerez]

CLR code is not significantly slower than plain C/C++. It is faster in one instances (memory allocation/deallocation), or slower in other. It heavily depends on usage. To say it is significantly slower than plain C/C++ ir narrow minded statement.

I do not think it is narrow minded, as far as I know CLR is not used professionally by the Game industry for anything at all.
it is all C++, Very low lever micro threading, and lot and lot of Intrinsic SSE code.
C# is all delegated to tools that are constantly suggested to maintained, but it is not use at all for any kind of high performance coding.

[thedmd]

I agree with Julio. CLR always will be slower than native code. IL do not allow to push pedal to the metal and to take the advantage of underlaying hardware.

If you need to use Newton in CLR environment, you will need a wrapper.

There will be no Newton for XBox or PS in near future. To do so you will need dev-kits for both, which are too expensive for free developer.

[Julio Jerez]

what confused me, is tha soem people speak as if It C/cPP code can be compiled to IL, using Visual studio and that the result code can be used on xbox 360 using the .net indies SDK whi is 100 buck I beleive.
I am not clear on that, but if it is true it might be worth tryting.
The Mac version on Newton is a very clean code that buidl flat without any instrisic when compiled for on objective C.
so I beleive it should be not problem geting to buidl for IL for c#

[thedmd]

Pure C or C++ code, instricts cannot be compiled to IL. There are restrictions about memory management. Every piece of memory have to be managed or allocated in managed manner. If not, code is unsafe and require elevated privileges to execute.

Compilation for Mac is different. GCC is used and compilation still leads to native x86 code (for modern Mac OS versions). Same story as with MinGW or MSVC.

You can try to compile Newton with /cli:safe. If in Reflector you will be able to see every piece of code then code will run on other platforms.

[Julio Jerez]

I think it become a mood point as loong as they is no real support for thi form MS or soni.
The guilty party is Microsoft for not let people use languages like C++ and C to develop. It is just a waste of time use a crippled SDK that do not really have a future.
why it is that Apple allows Objective C, and or C++

Newton is writen in C++, It will be a waste of time to put so much effort in making it work in a way it was no meant to be.
If I get a Legitime SDK, or when MS allows legimally C++ in the indie SDK I will do it, unlill then this is just talk.

I would love to make newton run in a console like XBox360, Wii, or PS3 but the public SDKs for indies developer are no really serius effort by MS, Nintendo and Soni.
they are just marketing ploys to shut down the Internet voices that would attack then for not reaching to the Open source community.

MS and Soni are the evil entities here, Apple is the only one the was serieus about embracing the public.

[thedmd]

Hm. Both: MS and Sony use C++ in SDK.

All that managed code is a cheap (and safe) way to let you play with XBox trough XNA. It may be fun and for small home-made games is sufficient.

Objective C is rather extension to C (same OC++ for C++), not exclusion. Porting is cheaper because of that fact.

Open SDK for consoles? This is not good business for those companies, because they gets profits from this. More, they may influence every developed project (example: Gran Tourismo 5 and Move controller) and push companies to raise quality of the final product. Good idea is worth less than good business, so they don't open they hardware for the world. : /

Apple take profits from AppStore, to this is quite different business model.

[Julio Jerez]

You give too much credit to MS and Sonic.
I believe it is way, way way, more sinister that what you think it is.
These free SDK has nothing to do with Business and it has everything to do all with the Image of the Company in the public opinion. It is just a way to Bamboozle the Internet Dwellers without giving then Nothing at all.
Tell me what successful Game has comes out from these so calls SDK?
The people putting time of that stuff are only playing the corporate Game and wasting the time.
But as long as there are the Self Idiots like the GameDev.Net self appointed SDK appraisal companies like MS and Intel can keep fooling then given them nothing while sailing the actual SDK for tens of thousands of dollars.
I sound Cynical but the only reason you see these so call free indie SDK is to soften the Internet Criticism.

[thedmd]

Tell me what successful Game has comes out from these so calls SDK?

Directly from SDK? This is very low API. There is always engine in middle. Dirt 2 was great one. ; )

The people putting time of that stuff are only playing the corporate Game and wasting the time.
But as long as there are the Self Idiots like the GameDev.Net self appointed SDK appraisal companies like MS and Intel can keep fooling then given them nothing while sailing the actual SDK for tens of thousands of dollars.

Developers get paid to deal with this stuff. There is always money issue involved. I agree that they use SDK not because they want to, but because they have to.

I sound Cynical but the only reason you see these so call free indie SDK is to soften the Internet Criticism.

I see your point. All that sounds reasonable and I think you are actually right.

[Bloody_Grunt]

The C# slower than C++ argument still rages on. Hell, I remember when people were saying games could never be programmed in C, Assembly is the only thing fast enough.
But I can see the point is moot. I could assure you that'd would be fast enough, but you'll stick to your legacy code guns (which I can respect).
I wish NGD was open source, I'd make the changes myself. (I can read C++ pretty good, half my work involves translating it to C#). But I know this is not to be. Well, thanks for looking into the plausibility of it.