+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
RE: What we're doing - tigerw - 06-08-2014
Oh noez! Competing server software! https://github.com/SpaceManiac/Glowstone , http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/27iqg0/glowstone_foss_server_with_bukkit_plugin_support/
Now I understand what corporate competition feels like.
Though its written in Java.
And is very young in terms of features.
RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 06-08-2014
They got nothin' on us!!
Though having the Bukkit API is really, really nice
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-08-2014
There have been loads of MineCraft server projects, but only very few have survived until now. Remember MineServer? Remember NessusMS? Remember BurningPig? We'll see how long it takes them to rot away.
Bukkit API may be nice, but Lua is much easier. Have you seen the page describing just setting up the IDE for Bukkit plugin development?
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-08-2014
Also when going for performance C++ gives you a lot more to tune. Stack allocated classes, templates (No boxing gives significant performance advantages), intrinsics, deterministic destruction (No GC spikes). If they really want performance there going to end up using JNI to c++ code.
RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 06-08-2014
(06-08-2014, 05:13 PM)xoft Wrote: Bukkit API may be nice, but Lua is much easier. Have you seen the page describing just setting up the IDE for Bukkit plugin development?
That is true, but you can't deny that it is nice that you can just take existing plugins and use them. Which is actually the only advantage though
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-08-2014
My point is that they can't fulfil both aims. If they want performance advantages over vanilla they need to drop to c++ but if they want to remain compatible with bukkit they need to stay in java. So they'll either have to sacrifice performance for compatibility and only be slightly faster or lose compatibility in some places as they use native code.
also do you know how much of a hot path sending whole chunks is?
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-09-2014
I've heard rumors about Java being able to JIT-compile the bytecode so that it actually executes faster than compiled C++ code. That's because Java can optimize for the specific machine on which it is running, while the C++ compiled code (usually) needs to be compatible with many platforms, thus it doesn't use all the performance enhancements it could. This might be especially true in the Windows world, where the users expect a single EXE to run on any Windows computer, so there's very little in the way of optimizations that could be done for a generic release. Of course, there are things like the video codecs that use dynamic code, but we don't want to go there
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-09-2014
Finally got home from the dancing weekend, I'm exhausted!
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-09-2014
From what I've heard. A generic C++ build using high level abstraction runs at similar speeds to java JITed code as the ability to optimise for specific machines is offset by optimisation times. However if you compile for the machine your running on C++ thrashes the Java because offline optimisation has so much more time to run. Also if you've identified hot paths C++ allows a lot more manual optimisations.
RE: What we're doing - tonibm19 - 06-09-2014
One question: If I compile MCServer myself (now I'm using bearbin builds), will I get more performance?
Probably not but I'd like to know.