i2c_hackery VS specs

Does that one even count, in the absence of some sort of macro to write all the boilerplate? ;)

The question arises from seeing a plethora of projects using ECS: hecs , Bevy , specs, legion

Instead, I'm using now the specs Library. It's a pure ECS library and much less powerful, without any visualization capabilities, but its works for me :)

writing an ECS is defined a challenging project, no matter the language or if you're a beginner. although it is entirely possible to write one in Rust, check out specs and bevy_ecs for examples.

specs

The official 3d rendering client uses a custom engine called Voxygen. They use Specs for logic.

Rust has a delightful ECS library, specs, that I absolutely love. It has safe multi-threaded execution built right in, which is fantastic for the pretty parallelizable work I was doing. Concurrency in C++ is nasty business on the best of days, and I've run into so many nasty bugs with the custom system I've had to build out to fit the web's weird threading model.

Man, this Specs [0] library is so strange to me, coming from a Unity background. Is there some sort of comparison as to why one way is better than the other?

[0] https://specs.amethyst.rs/

Hi everyone - I just picked up one of my long-unfinished side project built with Rust and would like to show it to you here. It's a clone of the famous(?) Winterbells game. It's written entirely in Rust and uses OpenGL and an entity-component-system architecture ([the `specs` crate](https://crates.io/crates/specs)) (still learning), no game engine.

Wait did the person at your company write specs or something else because they weren't pleased with it? I don't know much about amethyst and vaguely know about entity component systems but I watched a talk on someone making a game with amethyst and was pretty impressed -- it looked thoroughly approachable and I do not doubt the performance is there (since the whole reason you do ECS is performance).