5 Comments

Agreed with the article, but I find it funny that all of the safety oriented languages have such weird names. So we had the option between Rust, Zig and Nim?

Expand full comment

In the case of game-engines, it really feels like making a game engine is psychologically "easier" than making a game-specific framework. When making a particular game you have to take a lot of decisions that will limit the usefulness of your "game framework" and stop it from being used in your (or other people's) future projects.

That makes it feel a bit like a lost opportunity, and you turn to abstracting everything away in the pursue of a more general game framework only to end up... making neither a game nor a game engine! Obviously, a big game company can get away with it, but for hobbyists, the situation is different.

I guess this is why Ludum Dare and game jams in general are so successful at getting people to finish a project, there's no way you are making the "abstract it away" decision when you have 48 hours to ship.

Expand full comment

Git is another example like Rust. At the time of its creation, a lot of other distributed VC systems already existed (hg, bzr, darcs, monotone), but Linus building and backing git convinced me (and others!) that it was the future.

Expand full comment

I’m not sure I agree here. While the other VCSs existed, git was from the start basically a much, much better VCS. Both in some of the concepts, although not very clearly, but definitely in terms of actual usability and performance.

Expand full comment

As someone who built his own programming language: I confirm that nobody really takes a look unless you're backed by the big boys.

Expand full comment