News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Writing Network Drivers in Rust [pdf] by chc on Thursday November 08, 2018 @01:56PM (#18408856)
I haven't done game dev beyond hobbyist level, but 12.5% of your total budget for a frame seems pretty significant. Is that kind of percentage hit generally considered negligible?
Re:Writing Network Drivers in Rust [pdf] by Kaveren on Thursday November 08, 2018 @02:59PM (#18409421)
60 FPS is not enough, many people have monitors with much higher refresh rates (120 hz, more). You have virtual reality which basically requires a higher refresh rate than 60 FPS to begin with. Using a runtime component for garbage collection is highly sub-optimal.

Rust is possibly an ideal language for game development. Standard Rust has no runtime component, which is perfect. It's also a high-performance language.

The ecosystem for Rust game development is immature, but there's progress being made.

Re:Writing Network Drivers in Rust [pdf] by majewsky on Thursday November 08, 2018 @06:57PM (#18411170)
Standard Rust absolutely has runtime components. Otherwise a "Hello World" would not compile into several 100 KiB of binary. (Not saying that that's bad, just that this is how it is.)
Re:Writing Network Drivers in Rust [pdf] by bluejekyll on Thursday November 08, 2018 @07:12PM (#18411283)
I haven't looked since, but jemalloc I believe was a significant cost in this. Recently there was a change merged in to use the system allocator by default:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/9twam5/jemalloc_was_j...

Re:Writing Network Drivers in Rust [pdf] by red75prime on Thursday November 08, 2018 @10:49PM (#18412199)
It has runtime as in "C runtime", that is the code which runs before and after `main` and the code of standard library. It doesn't have runtime as in "Java runtime" (or "C# runtime") that includes the code that runs alongside your code (garbage collection thread).
Re:Writing Network Drivers in Rust [pdf] by Kaveren on Friday November 09, 2018 @01:07AM (#18412645)
Yes, I was loose in my use of the term "runtime" and sacrificing correctness. Writing "runtime component" rather than "runtime" makes it more misleading. I probably should've worded my original comment more wisely.