Geldorn said:
Sardauk said:
asc99c said:
786_ali said:
being harder to make means end result is of higher quality |
I'm a software engineer and I'd have to say this is a load of rubbish.
As a fairly analogous example from my own work, our system connects to databases like Oracle / MySQL. Like PS3 and XBox they both have different libraries, that in the end, do much the same stuff as each other. I'd used MySQL through other mechanisms for many years so that can play the part of the Xbox. Oracle is better but I hadn't used it before, so this can star as the PS3.
I knocked up the MySQL library to a working state within 12 hours and it had very few bugs. With Oracle, I spent a week on it, found it more tricky and ended up with many more bugs.
But in comparison with what I expect to happen a couple more years down the road, once the Oracle library got used, and I rebuilt parts of it to work with Oracle instead of being fudged to match what I did with MySQL, it worked better and faster with that second generation.
|
What a load of crap ... comparing gaming development with SGBD.... Oracel and MYSQL are using high-level programming language like SQL, which is accessible to newbees. We are talking about low-level (eletronically) software engineering with proprietary technology here.
There is no such such as "Developing on the PS3/360 for dummies" right ?
|
You do realise that Xbox 360/PS3 programming is done in C++ using industry standard API's (DirectX and OpenGL), don't you?
Which is not to say it's easy, but let's not pretend that PS3 game engines are written in Cell Assembly.
|
Define "written in assembly". Anyone concerned with performance is going to have to resort to a little inline assembly every once in awhile on any architecture. Compilers are as perfect as everyone thinks.
