I write games in C (yes, C) (2016)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

C vs. C++ for Game Development and Teams

  • One side argues C becomes painful in teams: everyone must share a mental model of object lifetimes and “C idioms,” which many newer devs lack. C++’s ownership tools (e.g., smart pointers) and STL containers make collaboration and review easier, especially for desktop-style code with complex object graphs, threads, and futures.
  • Others counter that C is simpler, with fewer stylistic choices and language features to argue about, and that C++ codebases are actually harder to keep coherent. Subsetting C++ reliably across a team is seen as difficult.

Simplicity, Productivity, and Domains

  • Several commenters resonate with the author’s preference for “simple” languages (C, Go, Odin, Zig) for solo projects and indie games, valuing directness and low abstraction.
  • Others see C as effectively “portable assembly” plus a custom ecosystem of libraries and conventions; productivity comes from that ecosystem, not the core language.
  • There’s disagreement whether C in 2026 is a realistic choice for new games: some call it “hardcore mode” or “a little crazy,” others note many still do it and that finishing a game matters more than the language.

Memory Management, Safety, and Tooling

  • Pro‑C++ commenters highlight automatic resource management (RAII, smart pointers) and better strings/containers as critical advantages; re‑implementing these in C is seen as needless work and error‑prone.
  • Pro‑C commenters prefer transparency: no hidden destructors or exceptions; leaks and misuse can be managed with discipline, static analysis, and CI tools (valgrind, sanitizers, leak detectors).
  • Debate arises whether avoiding advanced language features meaningfully reduces bugs, or whether the main gains come from tests and tools.

History and Ecosystem

  • Many point out that “writing games in C” was standard through the 1990s (id engines, etc.); C++ gradually took over AAA game engines, though C APIs remain dominant (OpenGL, Vulkan, SDL, some physics libs).
  • Some note that even “C++ games” historically were often “C with classes,” using minimal C++ features.

Alternatives: Rust, Go, Odin, Zig, Haxe, Nim

  • Rust is praised as a “necessary complexity” language for highly concurrent, networked systems, but seen as overkill for small indie games.
  • Odin and Zig receive enthusiasm as “modern C-like” options aimed at game dev, with simple syntax, good C interop, and batteries-included libraries. Haxe is liked but perceived as ecosystem-stagnant.
  • Discussion of Go focuses on GC pauses; several note the article is from ~2016 and that Go’s GC has improved; others argue low-level control (SIMD, cache layout, GPU) is a more relevant constraint than GC pauses. Nim is mentioned for non–stop-the-world and ARC-based memory models.

C vs. “C as a Subset of C++” and Strings/Containers

  • Some claim “choosing C is choosing a C++ subset enforced by the compiler”; others emphasize incompatibilities and say C++’s added footguns outweigh benefits.
  • There’s wide agreement that C’s string handling and lack of standard vectors/hash maps are painful; various workarounds (custom libs, sds-style strings) are discussed, but many see this as exactly why they’d rather use C++ (or another modern language).

Compile Times and Tooling

  • C is praised for fast compile times; some report C++ mode compiling the same source significantly slower due to heavier headers, exceptions, and STL. Others argue templates per se aren’t the problem; gigantic in-header code and standard library complexity are.

Learning Resources and Practical Tips

  • Suggested starting points for C game dev include raylib, SDL, Clay or Dear ImGui/CimGUI for UI, and “dos-like” or similar small engines.
  • There’s a caution against using Handmade Hero as a beginner’s primary resource due to its anti-library stance and very low-level approach.

Identity and “Hardcore” Signaling

  • Some see “I write games in C” essays as more about self‑image and contrarianism than technical necessity, likening it to riding a fixie bike.
  • Others push back, arguing that choosing C today can reflect independent thinking, a desire for transparency and control, or dissatisfaction with the complexity and churn of C++.