piston VS specs

Well, it depends on how you use it; writing to an image buffer isn't much less efficient than writing to any normal buffer (in fact, although displaying your scene to a window efficiently is important, your main bottleneck will be the actual ray tracing loop). You may want to read this article for a practical example of using an ImageBuffer to create and draw a texture with Piston. Other window backends you could use, apart from pixels which was already mentioned in another comment, include minifb and Mini GL, though I haven't personally used them.

And I really like generic systems where you can create a lot of different things. A program that interested me is Piston (https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/piston), I haven't researched it in depth yet, but the concept of being able to create several things with a base and different modules is very interesting

Try Piston

I haven't seen too much on Piston. No idea how active or recent these projects are but I'm still interested in working with it.

Check out their homepage, https://piston.rs, they even show off some great examples of how their library has been used!

Before I could implement the display output, I needed something to draw the images onto. There are quite a few Rust crates available to create a GUI window and update it with 2D graphics. Most of these are of course intended for making games, and also include ways of getting key presses as input, which I'll also need. I looked at Piston, which I've used before on other projects, Macroquad, which also supports web assembly as well as desktop targets, Pixels, which is intended specifically for 2D games, and Minifb, which is also specifically for 2D applications, but is much simpler. I also tried out libretro, which is specifically made for video game emulation, but I found it much more restrictive than the others because of it's narrow focus.

Depends on my goals. I year ago I wanted to learn rust, so I used piston for a gamejam. (There are several rust engines including bevy, piston, amethyst. They probably vary in quality, features, and constraints.) Piston was a terrible experience because compilation is slow even on that tiny project.

Piston

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).