[=EruArnold;131539]
You get the picture?
As for C# performance, for the case of unity, you should watch this lecture:
*** SPOILER: At minute 33 he shows “the numbers” - Native C++ scored 31, “Converted”-C# scored 33 (lower is better).
Here is a time-coded link to the benchmark-charts:
https://www…com/#t=2005
[/]
I’m not following the discussion closely but this only shows that performance is critical. It matters to an extent that Unity is going out of their way to get C# converted to C++. IL2CPP is an excellent move. They’ll gain speed and continue to lure and appease developers who prefer C#. No doubt, it’ll be a huge boost to Unreal Engine if/when it’s open to other languages like this (convert to C++).
[=EruArnold;131539]
That’s why there is a famous phrase:
“Premature optimization is the root of all evil”
Look it up…
[/]
I dislike that sentiment. It’s too often out of context. It’s usually rehashed by people: 1. who don’t care enough about performance; 2. who are in an environment where they don’t have to care; 3. who conflate [caring about optimizing, learning to optimize and profile] with the notion of “premature” (needless) optimization]. It’s only “premature” if it’s having little or no bearing on actual performance.
[=EruArnold;131539]
You have 2 choices, and both cost exactly the same:
- A card that takes 100W, and runs Quake3 at 300fps.
- A card that takes 200W, and runs Quake3 at 600fps.
Which would you choose?
[/]
We live in a world where people use different GPUs and CPUs. Only a 10% difference in frames can make the difference between enjoyable vs. unplayable. If a person has a very lightweight game or isn’t concerned with millions of users on older devices, then, sure, it’s less important.