Hacker News Reader

Comment by charlotte-fyi | Hacker News Reader

Your conspiratorial framing here strikes me as odd, as well as unnecessarily denigrating Bevy as a "research project." Isn't the answer quite obvious, which is that if someone wants to use an engine built off "proven old tech", they should probably just use one of the major players in the space, and that Bevy's uniqueness/commitment to the ECS model is precisely what causes it to generate more hype and energy? Is this really an issue of "fairness"?

View on HN

> Isn't the answer quite obvious, which is that if someone wants to use an engine built off "proven old tech", they should probably just use one of the major players in the space

All of the major engines are written in C++. I've tried Unreal, Unity and Godot. They all have their flaws. With Unreal and Godot those flaws are mainly the scripting languages BP and GDScript which one can get tired of quite easily, especially BP. You can of course use C++ for all your scripting but both engines strongly encourage you to use their scripting solution for a big chunk of your game. (Unity has a bunch of other issues and isn't source available, although C# is fairly pleasant to work with IMO).

There is definitely need for an OOP engine in Rust just as there is need for an ECS engine in Rust.

> There is definitely need for an OOP engine in Rust

Is there a need for an OOP engine in Rust?

I don't want to be too negative here — the developer of Fyrox seems like an incredibly talented and productive engineer and they can work on whatever they please, more options in the ecosystem is always a net good — but in my experience attempting to model OOP patterns in Rust is almost always the wrong decision.

It's a mixed approach in the end. Bevy is 100% ECS from what I gather. Fyrox is doing a pragmatic approach of taking what's good from different engines. I'm sure as it evolves it will abandon the things that don't work in a Rust context. So to rephrase: there is definitely a need for a game engine in Rust that's not 100% ECS.

Bevy has actually moved away from the ECS for performance-critical lookups in the renderer where the ECS doesn't carry its weight. The engine isn't dogmatic about ECS use.

Thanks for the info. That's good to know.

> Fyrox is doing a pragmatic approach of taking what's good from different engines.

And bevy isn't taking what's good from different engines? Bevy gets inspiration from everywhere. Just because it uses an ECS doesn't mean it's all developed in a bubble.

It's not _that_ OOP. I keep telling people not to use OOP to refer to fyrox because people associate it with java but there maybe isn't a better commonly known word.

OOP in fyrox means composition and message passing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com