Is Ruby a good replacement for C++? Like, lets say I wan't

Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
2016-06-15 20:31:09 Post No. 55095975
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: 1465692273124.png (34 KB, 606x688) Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:31:09 Post No. 55095975 [Report]

Is Ruby a good replacement for C++?

Like, lets say I wan't to make a gaymen engine from scratch. Nice, relatively powerful, lightweight, dynamic engine rendering 2D/3D graphics on multiple OS platforms.

Would Ruby be able to get the job done properly, or will I have to go through hoops in order to do it?

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:34:19 Post No.55096013
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:34:19 Post No.55096013 [Report]

>>55095975
>Is Ruby a good replacement for C++?
Is a hammer a good replacement for a saw?

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:38:06 Post No.55096062
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:38:06 Post No.55096062 [Report]

>>55095975
Ruby is slow as fuck in comparison to C++. Also the OpenGL bindings for it were kind of abandoned years ago.

Theoretically nothing is stopping you, but I really wouldn't recommend it.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:41:36 Post No.55096110
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-15 20:41:36 Post No.55096110 [Report]

>>55095975
Ruby is slow. It's not multiplatform. Fuck, it barely supports windows. You can check Crystal Lang, which is ruby-like language, but for 3d games there is nothing better than c/c++.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-15 21:31:06 Post No.55096803
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-15 21:31:06 Post No.55096803 [Report]

>>55095975
no

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-15 21:33:08 Post No.55096828
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-15 21:33:08 Post No.55096828 [Report]

Ruby is dead. Ignore it and move on.