It's not about the language, C# is generally fine if you know how to work the GC (which admittedly many people don't). The kind of C++ that is used for game code in UE4 isn't exactly "zero-overhead" either and it also uses garbage collection. Plus, on mobile C# in Unity is translated to C++ anyway. My guess is that the difference is negligible in most cases.

What really makes the difference is that Unity has light-weight rendering pipelines available, running on older GPUs. UE4 just ditches those devices.

Can you expand on "knowing how to work with the GC" in Unity? I'm a Unity dev and rarely touch GC other than keeping mindful of the work I'm giving it by size/quantity of objects in my scene/making sure objects are dereferenced/can be collected.

Basically, know what does and doesn't allocate heap memory, don't give the GC more work than it can handle and measure on the target hardware. Do it right at the start of development and consider things like object pooling and the new ECS, if necessary. Understand how your GC works: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2018/11/26/feature-preview-increme...

It's not about performance in 99% of frames, it's about not dropping frames when the GC kicks in and needs more time than your budget accounts for.

> Why? Unreal Engine has targeted iOS + Android phones for 5+ years now, successfully. (Fortnite, PUBG, Dungeon Defenders, Horn, etc).

Dungeon Defenders and Horn are not UE4 titles, UE3 isn't available anymore. PUBG and Fortnite only work on higher-end phones. UE4 is going the "easy" route by not supporting older devices. With Unity, you could still target fixed-function hardware up until recently.

> I don't know why people are still using unity instead of UE4

How about not having to use the dumpster fire called C++ for game code? C# is far nicer to use. Also, in Unity code hot-reloads instantly and reliably.

> Meanwhile, UE4 is a really good deal and keeps getting better with every release.

So does Unity. I think people underestimate how much more development effort went into Unity in the last years. UE4 has more fanboys, less actual success. On the other hand, with the Fortnite windfall, maybe UE4 will pick up pace now.

> It's really just a better put together engine all around.

It's still a godawful pile of C++ that takes forever to compile. I'm sure the same is true for Unity's core, but they're moving to a subset of C# that can be compiled more efficiently.

> So, an article in "The Guardian" laments the immorality of teaching capitalism to future would-be capitalists.

Hmm. From TFA, the author laments that:

Within the business school, capitalism is assumed to be the end of history, an economic model that has trumped all the others, and is now taught as science, rather than ideology.

And then:

The business school assumes capitalism, corporations and managers as the default form of organisation, and everything else as history, anomaly, exception, alternative.

Reasonable, and substantiated, concerns around economics as a subject (rather than pretending to be an actual science).

> Let's take the example of the manager who fires a hundred workers and who pays himself a 500,000$ bonus ... We're talking about a man who rose to the top, someone whose education (or indoctrination) will not have destroyed his sense of self-interest.

Your commitment to the masculine is probably merely a habit, but you've inadvertently highlighted one of the problems exacerbated by the teachings of the average business school -- self-interest at any cost is acceptable, because it's an inherent property of capitalism.

Self-interest is fine and dandy, but the example you're citing -- dispense with a hundred people in order to obtain a half a million dollars -- is not an overly productive practice for most societies.

> Your commitment to the masculine is probably merely a habit, but you've inadvertently highlighted one of the problems exacerbated by the teachings of the average business school -- self-interest at any cost is acceptable, because it's an inherent property of capitalism.

I'm not committed to anything, would you have preferred I chose a woman to be put into the role of (from your perspective) "the villain"? What about a transgender person of color, would that not completely change the power dynamics of the situation? How about literally a red herring that somehow made it through business school?

The point is, if you want to just push an ideology into the heads of students in order to "fix capitalism", without any regard to the actual socio-economic environment, you're doing them a disservice and you will fail at your goal. These people will not survive in the market based on what you teach them.

"Self-interest at any cost" is a naive caricature of capitalism. You're probably indoctrinated too much for me to make an impact here, but just keep in mind that if you only ever fight a straw man, you're never winning an actual battle.

> Self-interest is fine and dandy, but the example you're citing -- dispense with a hundred people in order to obtain a half a million dollars -- is not an overly productive practice for most societies.

Unfortunately, you weren't even able to perceive the scenario as the dilemma that it is: In this scenario, either 90 or 100 workers will be fired for economic reasons. The question is, does the manager give up on his bonus to save 10 people for one year, voluntarily. If he does, it may have an impact on morale, boosting productivity, possibly leading to even higher long-term gain. If he doesn't, he immediately gets to be more wealthy. There's no obviously right or wrong answer even from the point of self-interest.

Contrary to what one might like to believe, productivity is not the same as production output. If there's a surplus, production must be decreased to the point where it meets demand, not well above. Laying off workers then can improve productivity, because revenue relative to cost increases. These are basic economic principles that exist even outside of capitalist systems, especially socialist systems (used to) struggle with this issue. As far as society as a whole is concerned, widespread misallocation of labor makes everyone poorer, because it creates a discrepancy between what is produced and what is necessary.

Exactly, if you are more prone to sunburn, wear more sunscreen. Same as handling your own feelings.

And yes, feelings are completely in your head. Things happen in the world and your mind reacts a certain way. Nobody else knows how you will react nor do they have any control of your consciousness.

> Exactly, if you are more prone to sunburn, wear more sunscreen. Same as handling your own feelings.

If you could "handle your feelings" as easily as putting on sunscreen, literally every psychotherapist would be out of work.

> And yes, feelings are completely in your head.

Anything you will ever perceive is "in your head". You don't control a lot of it. "Positive thinking" doesn't cure depression or schizophrenia.

> Nobody else knows how you will react nor do they have any control of your consciousness.

Human reactions are actually fairly predictable. Being rude, arrogant or condescending is generally off-putting. Some amount of control can be exerted as well, for instance, it will almost certainly be impossible for you to not briefly picture a TINY PINK ELEPHANT after having read this sentence.

It's not about easy or hard, the point is that it is under your control.

If your emotions are subconscious and you yourself aren't fully in control then how could you possible blame someone else for them? If it's that simple to be affected then you could just as easily affect yourself back to the state you want to be in, hence it is a circular argument without basis.

The world happens. You react. Equip and train yourself to react differently if you don't like the outcomes.

Predictability does not mean causation, especially when it is not accurate 100% of the time and therefore subjective. Sure, when you yell at someone, they might become upset. But another person might not care at all. So are you now causing both anger and apathy in these individuals with the same statement? Or is it that they react as individuals instead and it's really under none of your control?

> It's not about easy or hard, the point is that it is under your control.

My point, if that hasn't been clear by now, is that your emotions are not under your control. Your physical reactions may or may not be.

> If your emotions are subconscious and you yourself aren't fully in control then how could you possible blame someone else for them?

People stimulate each other's emotions with their behavior, some behavior can certainly be measured to to elicit certain emotions. If I follow your argument, clearly people are in control of their behavior and they are also responsible for it (agreed). So, under certain circumstances, it should be possible to "blame" them, though I'm not focusing on that.

Your "solution" boils down to: "If you're so sensitive and not in control of your emotions, just go away." That's fine, but not every community needs to have such "low" standards.

> The world happens. You react. Equip and train yourself to react differently if you don't like the outcomes.

An online community is not "the world", we get to design such environments. In "the world", there are tigers and lions, but you wouldn't argue to set them loose on main street just to make people stronger and more vigilant, would you?

> Predictability does not mean causation, especially when it is not accurate 100% of the time and therefore subjective.

That's a pretty weak argument though, in "the world" you always have to go by approximations, even in science we struggle to remove subjectivity completely.

> Sure, when you yell at someone, they might become upset. But another person might not care at all.

Let's say I had the desire to punch a random person in the face, there's certainly an off-chance that some masochist would love to have this happen to them. It's clearly a subjective reaction. Yet, it's not acceptable to go out punching people, don't you agree?

> So are you now causing both anger and apathy in these individuals with the same statement? Or is it that they react as individuals instead and it's really under none of your control?

I must appeal to your common sense. If some behavior of yours causes, for example "50% anger, 30% apathy, 19% annoyance and 1% joy" across a selection of subjects, then the chance that any of it is not negative is 1%. Yelling at people probably isn't so far off from that, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN? Sure, I can't predict with 100% certainty what the reaction will be, but if something is 99% bad, it'll better have some strong upside for me to accept it in my community. Yelling at people doesn't have that upside, it's generally frowned upon, so it's reasonable to not allow it. Of course, most people generally understand and follow that without it having to be made a rule.

I'm not sure what you're arguing because we're not discussing probabilities or socially acceptable behavior. We're talking about cause and effect, of self control over actions and feelings. The standard is that you should have personal responsibility and control your emotions, the highest standard there is.

Yes, there are obviously certain patterns of behavior and you shouldn't punch people, however it is completely within their control what they feel and do about it. They can choose to hit back, or ignore you. Just because everyone reacts with anger to something does not mean you must. It only means that it's a common reaction, nothing more, and has nothing to do with control over that action itself. They choose to do something, you can choose differently, even if you're 1 in a million. What about that is confusing?

Either you believe you have the will to control your emotions and actions or you don't. And if think you don't and it's really that simple to affect your emotions without any mental control, then you must also accept that you can impart that same effect by just doing different actions and making yourself feel differently.

They haven't dropped any language yet.

They're planning to update to a newer version of C# and they will drop the other languages as a part of that update.

It 100% depends on the company and the hiring process.

It probably helps with some of the "cool" places. I would certainly value it as a plus in "general skill level", but that's because I'm cool.

It will probably not help or even be held against you with the "uncool" places. If it comes down to it, why would they hire you instead of the clown that has experience in <related enterprise crap> instead?

I think this is less true today with all the game engines doing 90% of the hard technical work for you, otherwise I would agree. However, the question isn't whether it can show skill (it definitely can), but whether that results in a payoff (i.e. is being recognized).

> Do you want to work for people who are too to small-minded to realise the benefits of game programming?

Some people can't judge the merits of game programming, that doesn't make them small minded. Depending on where you want to work, you may not have much of a choice in those terms anyway.

I think you might share a common misconception on what the hard part of game programming is.

Rendering and shaders and 'technical' stuff are all, as I put it, solved, problems. You can read a book that will show you how to suitably implement them.

Managing the interactions between a dozen different and novel systems, however, is the part and where most seem to fail and what I'd consider the hard part.

> Some people can't judge the merits of game programming, that doesn't make them small minded.

Right, but the problem is those that do judge it in a systematically negative way.

I'm not sure that's really much of a problem, this guy may have just encountered some self-important pricks (and it's good he found that out early).

On the other hand, if the position is about <X> and the applicant has half his experience in <Y> instead, that's going to be a negative (not necessarily a deal breaker) no matter what.

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them.

That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky.

You'd think that with this track record, a smart guy like Chomsky would begin to see that there must be something fundamentally wrong with socialist political theory. Yet, he keeps retreating into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy whenever the next socialist experiment fails.

Well you can say the same for supposedly capitalist countries. I mean US elections are a farse of external (no, not the russians) buying our elections for their economic or geopolitical purposes.

Now riddle me this. Name me one failed socialist country that failed (as I believe all will) without massive Western intervention to ruin their economy. We're kinda pricks, aren't we?

We tried a coup-de-etat within months of Chavez' victory. That doesn't set the stage for a pro-Western social democratic state, does it?

We tried to steal the Bolivian elections that got Morales in power. By then the American brand was so tarnished the ambassador got run out of the country.

So most of the blames does go to Chavez. But can we please pretend we're anything other than pricks?

I'd like to think I have the same outlook for most of the places that I've lived. Mostly it gets better, because mostly, people are good. But people f up, and then they make it worse... That is life. Reading a bit of chomsky helped me form that outlook.

The world used to be much much worse. The world is getting better and better. Statistically speaking. We literally live in a golden age. For a good portion it seriously seriously sucks. But that ratio is getting lower and lower yes? 500 million people raised out of poverty in china alone over the past 30 years. That's gotta count for something, doesn't it?

A significant expenditure for us, an overwhelming one for the other side, of money, arms, and conflict to destroy a region's viability therefore ensuring that any (including capitalism) economic system will fail. The aim is force people to either capitulate to us in the hope we will bring in re-construction money, or terrorize others into falling in line.

Read Chomsky, he'll give you references (from the likes of the declassified CIA documents, ect)

For example

Russian Civil War. That's well before they "ruled half the world's economy". Btw, the side we picked were real pricks. The only ones who could make the Bolsheviks the better alternative.

Greek civil war. Here we started sweeping away the commies (who actually liberated Greece) while we stil at war with the Nazis.

Cuba, nasty embargo. Numerous terrorist act committed by our proxies. The point here is to demonstrate to L. America the punishment of going red.

Cambodia. Bombed them to the stone age destroying all their capital. We were so through, people predicted that millions would die even if the Khmer Rouge hadn't (the predictions, btw, predate the Khmer Rouge taking power).

Cambodian side note: by the 1980s we were siding with the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam. Politics and bed fellows and all of that.

Vietnam. We dumped so much Agent Orange that they can't grow non-poisonous produce if they tried. We destroyed all their industrial capital.

N. Korea. We bombed them so throughly that we ran out of civilian* targets. We bombed them for things we hung Nazis for (irrigation damns). Needless to say they had no capital.

Read more Chomsky for more fun (and references) !

* Did you really mean economy or landmass, or population? I don't think the combined socialist countries, at their height in the late 70s, got close to third the world economy, nevermind half. To be clear, i don't expect socialism to work. I just don't get why we bomb those who try it.

You're talking mostly about military intervention, mostly before socialists got the chance to even implement their policy.

Now, wherever you start, a functioning economic system should be able to lift even a destroyed country up eventually. Just look at what Germany accomplished after WW1 (too bad they went for another war with what they gained).

What about all the Eastern European countries that abandoned socialism without a single bullet fired? What about all the former African socialist countries that few people ever talk about?

> Did you really mean economy or landmass, or population?

I'm talking about roughly half the world (people). I may be off with that figure, but suffice it to say it should be big enough to work autonomously.

So defending South Korea from being brutally over-run by an unwarranted North Korean attack is intervention into North Korea? Somehow 60 years of direct access to the massive chines market and North Korea's economy is still a fraction of South Koreas.

How did we intervene in the USSR, the largest county in the world, to destabilize it. And how could we, given socialism is so efficient and they had all the massive resources they'd ever need, right?

It's not just in socialist countries that the critics get silenced or killed, or that they are incompetent or get corrupted, but, normally, there are a more "laissez faire" attitude to those countries from the press and the political class, as Chomsky have pointed repetitively.

If you care about the welfare of people is fair to ask why a minority live like kings when the vast majority live in misery in a resource rich country. And, I think, is fair to ask for changes and try to support those changes even if you know that probably you will get disappointed finally or you will get mixed results.

The true is that, unsurprisingly, and independently of how you call those policies, spending resources in the poor improve the life of the poor.

Socialism has failed 100% of the time. You can't get worse than that. Even if capitalist systems failed to improve the lives of the poor 95% of the time, it would still have a better track record. In reality, the most successful countries are all capitalist and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

The fact that some autocratic countries also employ capitalism doesn't change that. Capitalism doesn't magically cure corruption, it's merely a superior economic system. Poverty isn't a function of wealth inequality, it's function of economic development. In a socialist system, the poor may be less poor in relative terms, but they're more poor in absolute terms, because socialist economics eventually fail.

It seems to me that you define socialism as whatever it fails and capitalism as whatever it works.

Pure capitalism has never existed neither, so we have a spectrum of possibilities. I would argue that the better system is the one that improve the lives or the people and, that should be the measure.

Even if capitalism was the definitive answer, that doesn't mean that we should stop criticizing it.

If you have a system where, in the middle of the most advanced age of humanity, most of the people have not even the most basic needs covered, like was (and it's) the case of Venezuela, some criticism is needed.

I'm not going to argue that socialism is a good system, I agree with you that we have not good examples, but that doesn't automatically, leave us with a system where all resources have to be allocated by the market. In fact, if something has been proved for now, is that is a very bad idea.

So, when you criticism socialism, remember that a lot of countries in the world redistribute resources in a not market way very successfully. Call that whatever you want.

> It seems to me that you define socialism as whatever it fails and capitalism as whatever it works.

No socialist state that called itself a socialist state has been a success. None. Zero. There are democratic countries that may at some point have "social democrats" or even "socialists" in power. These countries may have passed some laws that are "socialist" in spirit, but virtually all of those countries employ a capitalist free enterprise market. Then you have countries like China that call itself communist and still employ capitalism.

Yet, socialist thinkers are pre-occupied with the perceived evils of capitalism (and finding means to abolish it), even though it has outperformed any socialist economic model thus far conceived. Capitalism is blamed for practically every ill, including the failure of socialism itself.

> So, when you criticism socialism, remember that a lot of countries in the world redistribute resources in a not market way very successfully. Call that whatever you want.

Like which? I'm not going to call any form of redistribution "socialism", like some people like to do.

So, if they are successful and call themselves communist they are not really communist. There are not private banks in China, for just pointing a random fact. I'm not defending the Chinese model, but the diminishing of poor people in the world that you pointed before is mostly due to China.

>>"Like which? I'm not going to call any form of redistribution "socialism", like some people like to do."

I suppose you agree that there are not pure capitalist states. What we see in the world is normally called "mixed economy".

In your opinion, what is this mix composed of?

Anyway, I think we are discussing about semantics.

> So, if they are successful and call themselves communist they are not really communist.

China is still very much communist in every way but economically. I don't mind calling them communist, it's just that if we're talking about an economic system and I'm looking for success story of socialism, you can't bring up China. Ever since China abandoned planned economy and employed capitalism, its economy has grown by leaps and bounds.

> I suppose you agree that there are not pure capitalist states. What we see in the world is normally called "mixed economy".

Whatever you want to call it, does "more socialism" or "more capitalism" correlate strongly with wealth? What about individual freedom?

Can you define what you mean by socialist?

It seems to me that critics of the government in non-democratic countries are the ones in danger, while the ones in democracies aren't, even in socialist democracies (eg, Scandinavia).

If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

> Can you define what you mean by socialist?

Apparently, anything that fails eventually is not socialist. Hence, "No True Scotsman".

> If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

I don't consider these countries socialist. They're not "socialist democracies" (no such thing exists as far as I can see). They're commonly called "social democracies", but that's because the word "social" is political capital. The word "socialist" on the other hand is rather toxic, so most of the mainstream left parties call themselves "social democratic". They may have a bit of "socialist" policy, but not much more so than e.g. the US. Their economic system is fundamentally capitalist.

If you disregard his halo of authority for a moment, you'll find that most of what he says is usually very laboriously articulated whataboutery. It is "thorough and detailed", but that doesn't make it convincing.