I have been asked to investigate porting Wii games and some (Sony) PSOne games to OpenGL ES (can you guess what platform?).
I have never undertaken a game port like this before (and will be hiring someone to do it) but I'd like to understand the process.
Does the Wii use OpenGL? If not what does it use and how easy is it to port to OpenGL / OpenGL ES?
Are there any resources/books/blogs that will help me in understanding the process?
Will my company have to become an official Wii developer? If so where do I start that process?
Porting from the Wii or the PSOne is a complex and involved task that can be broken down into multiple separate engineering efforts working in parallel to produce a working end product. The best possible thing you can do before moving to the target hardware is to compartmentalize all of the non-portable code while ensuring that the game continues to run as expected. When you commit to moving to the new platform, your effort switches to reimplementing the non-portable compartmentalized parts.
So, to answer your question, yes, you will need to become or work with a Sony and Nintendo licensed developer in order to take this approach. In the case of Sony, I don't even know if they offer a PSOne development program anymore which presents issues. Your Sony account rep can help clarify.
The major subsystems that are likely to be the focus of your porting effort are:
Rendering Graphics code contains fundamental assumptions about the hardware it is being run on in order to perform optimally. API-level compatibility is superficial compatibility and does not get you as much as you may hope it does. Plan on finding the entry point to the renderer and determining what data you need to render a scene and rewriting all the render code from there for your target hardware.
Game Saving Game state serialization and archival will need to be separated out. Older games often fwrite() structs with #pragma packed fields. Is that still going to work for you?
Networking Wii games write to high level services that are unavailable on your target hardware. At the low level, sockets are still sockets. What network services do your Wii games rely on?
Controls From where you are coming from to where you are going, anything short of a full redesign or reimagining of input will result in poor reviews of the software.
Memory Management Console games often make fundamental assumptions about the rate the system software returns memory from the heap, how much fragmentation it will cause and the duration the game needs to operate under these conditions. These memory management assumptions are obsolete on the new platform. It is wise to write your own memory manager that provides a cushion from the operating system. Also, console games compiled for release are stripped of most error handling and don't gracefully handle running out of memory-- just a heads up.
Content Your bottleneck will be system memory. Can you fit the necessary assets into memory? With textures, you can reduce mip where necessary and with graphics hardware timing, you can pull in the far clipping plane. With assets resident in memory, you may need a technical artist to go through and reduce the face density of your models or an animation programmer to implement a more size-friendly animation codec. This is very game specific.
You also run into the standard set of problems with things like bit compatibility (though the Wii and PSOne are both 32-bit), compiler idiosyncrasies, build script incompatibilities and proprietary compiler extensions.
Games are relatively challenging to test. A good rule of thumb is you want to have enough testers on your team to run through the game in a maximum of two days, covering all major aspects of play. In games that take a long time to beat (RPGs with 30+ hours of gameplay), your testing team needs to be quite large to offer full coverage. Because you are just doing a port, you can come up with a testing plan that maximizes coverage of your new code without having a testing team punch every wall in your game to make sure it (still) has clipping. The game shipped once.
Becoming a licensed developer requires you to apply. The turnaround time, from experience, is not good. Generally speaking, priority is given to studios with shipped titles and organized offices with reasonably good security and the ability to buy the (relatively) expensive development kits. You may be better off working with a licensed developer if you do not meet these criteria.
Console and game development is challenging for people already experienced in it. There is no book that covers it all. My recommendation is to attempt to recruit an expert who has experience shipping titles in a position of systems or engine programmer. What types of programmers and skillsets exist in games is a whole different question for Stack, though.
Games consoles don't use OpenGL but their own, custom libraries. The main reason is that they are pretty slow and have little RAM. So you need to squeeze out every drop of performance you can get. And that means: Custom code. Usually, you get a framework with the developer kit which gets you started and then, you build your code from that. Eventually, you'll start replacing parts from the developer kit with your own special code to get all the speed and special effects you need.
There is a reason why PSOne games are so ugly on the PS3 despite the fact that the developers have access to the sources: Revenue just doesn't justify to touch the code.
Which is one reason why game development is so expensive: Every game is (more or less) a completely new product. Sometimes, game companies can reuse a bit of code from the last version but more often than not, they have to develop everything again. They also don't talk much with each other.
In recent years, kits have become more complex and powerful and you can get complete game engines (with all kinds of effects and 3D support) but each engine is a completely different kind of beast, so you can't even copy code from engine A to B.
Today, media content (video, audio and render sequences) are so expensive that the actual game engine is often a minor detail, so this isn't going to change any time soon.
Net result: If you want to port a game, write an emulator for the hardware (which is usually pretty simple and allows you to run all kinds of games).
[EDIT] To develop software for the Wii, see here: http://www.warioworld.com/
For a Wii emulator, see http://wiiemulator.net/
I ported a couple of games, when I was a new game programmer, from working with one version of our engine to a newer version (where backwards compatibility was neither ignored nor pursued). Even copying (and possibly renaming) the files and placing them in a home in the new project was a bit of work. Following that, the procedure was:
recompile
fix many of the hundreds of errors [in many places, with the same error occurring over and over again]
and
"wire up" calls from the new game engine to the appropriate calls in the old code
"wire up" function calls from the old code into the new game engine
deal with other oddities (ex. in the old game engine, the 2d game would "swizzle" textures itself; in the new version, the engine did it (on specific platforms))
and, while I don't recall this clearly, it was probably mixed in with a bunch of #ifdeffing out portions of code so the thing would actually compile, and possibly creating function stubs to be filled in later.
As I recall, it was three or four days until I had something that compiled. (But, it did help when we ported other games from the old version to the new one!)
The magnitude of the task will come down to what the code you are getting is like. If it has generic 3D calls that you can intercept -- add a thunking layer to -- then you are in business. It depends on the level of abstraction in the code. If it is well-behaved and has things like "RenderModel" and "RenderWorld" calls, you can replace those functions, and even the structures that they work with. If drawing is occurring all over the place, and calls are more like "Draw Polygon" and "Draw Line" or "Draw using this highly optimised data structure", then you are likely in for a long slog.
You shouldn't need a Wii dev kit. Sometimes it is nice to verify that the code you are given does indeed compile in the original environment (and matches the shipping code!), but sometimes you can just take it on faith and make it work in its new environment.
Lastly, I don't think the Wii uses OpenGL, and I really don't know where to point you for further help.
What you may want to do is to start with designing the architecture of the game, write up a detailed specification for what the new game is like.
Once you have this, since you will be rewriting the code, you may find that some of the business logic that doesn't deal with the console can be ported over. But, anything dealing with I/O, user interaction or graphics/sounds will be rewritten, so you might as well do that from scratch.
A specification is very important, to make certain that you know how the current game is working so that the new port will give the same user experience, if that is what is desired.
You may want to keep the same bugs, if that is part of the experience, as, if I know that in the Wii I can jump down and bounce off the wall to safely land, then if I can't do that in the new version then that may be bothersome.
Well porting a PS1 game to an iPhone would be quite a task they work in very different ways. I'm sure its doable but it will be a LOT of work to replace all the fixed point maths and lack of Z-Buffer based rendering to a real graphics chip.
Wii would be a lot easier. The Wii API is very similar to OpenGL. However the Wii has some very nice fixed function features that just are not available on any other GL based platform. Should be doable, though ...
I'm not really sure I can say anything more than that. Have signed far too many NDAs over the years to be 100% sure of what I can and cannot say ;)
Still if you want to hire someone to do some porting work and are prepared to supply the required hardware then I might be free ;)
Related
I recently started doing some investigations into ASM and I've played with a few of the demos online. I must say that the Unreal demo was quite impressive... I've been developing an app using Three for a large number of months now. It works beautifully on fast machines, but on lower end ones it tends to struggle. When I ran the unreal demo on my lower end machines, the demo worked like a dream. My question is, what place might ASM have with Three - could it vastly speed up the engine? Is it worth while investigating or developing a solution that utilises both and switching between them based on the browser? Also would there be any plans for Three to take advantage of it in the future?
I came from a C++ background, and would be quite interested in the prospect of developing something. But at the same time it would mean having to re-learn the language and even more problematic might be the large amount of time it would take to get it to a usable point.
What are your thoughts?
This is my opinion:
First and foremost, asm.js isn't really meant to be written by hand. Altough I say that It certainly is possible to write it as it has a validator. The unreal demo is something that has been compiled into asm.js with emscripten. It also doesn't need to interact with other code outside the code that gets compiled. So it generates highly optimized code because of the fact that the unreal demo is already highly optimized code in C++, It gets optimized by a compiler and then gets another run of optimisations through asm.js.
Secondly, asm.js is actually only supported by firefox. Altough all other browsers can execute it but on most it still incurs a performance penalty. This penalty is if you compare asm.js code that does the same as normal javascript code. Just search jsperf.com for examples of this.
Okay, This is some general guide lines about asm.js. Now let's talk about Three.js.
Firstly, because THREE.js has to interact with usercode, it isn't easy to write an asm.js library because of it's many restrictions (no objects).
Secondly, Three.js will not gain much performance a whole lot in performance for calculations where asm.js is strong in. But will gain more from future updates from the browsers. (for instance, the creation of typedarrays in chrome which is now a pain point in THREE.js is comming soon. V8 issue)
Thirdly, The code in asm.js needs to manage its own memory. Which would mean that THREE.js has to figure out a way to make a large apps work with limited memory. Or make every application very memory hungry.
Fourth, comparing the unreal demo with three.js is a bit unfair due to the fact that three.js tries to allow everyone to write 3D apps while the unreal engine is a highly optimized engine for 3D games.
As you've noticed, I'm mostly against asm.js in three.js. But that's becuase it's too early to tell what the best way to go is. There is a high probability that asm.js will get a place in three.js eventually but for more a limited use as renderer-only for instance. But for now, there are still too many unsolved questions around asm.js.
But If you want to use asm.js and use C++, Then i recommend emscripten which was used to build the unreal demo.
This is of course my opinion. But I think it somewhat represents what #Mr.doob and #WestLangley had in mind. And sorry about the long post.
The best way to find out is to write a small demo in C (by hand) then compile to asm.js and run it, then write the same small demo in JS with Three.js (by hand) then run that, and compare the differences in both developer experience as well as performance.
How can we access the point cloud in the Leap Motion API? One feature that led me to purchase it was the point cloud demo from their promo video, but I can't seem to locate documentation regarding it and user replies on the forums seem mixed. Am I just missing something?
I'm looking to use the Leap Motion as a sort of cheap 3D scanner.
That demo was clearly a mockup which simulated a 3-D model of the human hand, not actual point cloud data. You can tell by the fact that points were displayed which could not have possibly been read by the sensor, due to obstruction.
orion78fr points to one forum post on this, but the transcript of an interview by the founders provides more information direct from the source:
Can you please allow access to cloud points in SDK?
David: So I think sometimes people have a misperception as to really
how things work in our hardware. It’s very different from other things
like the Kinect, and in normal device operation we have very different
priorities than most other technologies. Our priority is precision,
small movements, very low latency, very low CPU usage - so in order to
do that we will often be making sacrifices that make what the device
is doing completely not applicable to what I think you’re getting at,
which is 3D scanning.
What we’re working on are sort of alternative device modes that will
let you use it for those sorts of purposes, but that’s not what it was
originally built for.You know, it’s our goal to let it be able to do
those things and with the hardware can do many things. But our
priority right now is of course human computer interaction, which we
think is really the missing component in technology, and that’s our
core passion.
Michael: We really believe in trying to squeeze every ounce of
optimization and performance out of the devices for the purpose they
were built. So in this case the Leap today is intended to be a great
human computer interface. And we have made thousands of little
optimizations along the way to make it better, that might sacrifice
things in the process that might be useful for things like 3D scanning
objects. But those are intentional decisions, but they don’t mean that
we think 3D scanning isn’t exciting and isn’t a good use case. There
will be other things we build as a company in the future, and other
devices that might be able to do both or maybe there will be two
different devices. One that is fully optimized for 3D scanning, and
one that continues to be optimized and as great as it can be at
tracking fingers and hands.
If we haven’t done a good job communicating that the device isn’t
about 3D scanning or isn’t going to be able to 3D scan, that’s
unfortunate and it’s a mistake on our part - but that’s something that
we’ve had to sacrifice. The good news is that those sacrifices have
made the main device really exceptional at tracking hands and fingers.
I have developed with the Leap Motion Controller as well as several other 3-D scanning systems, and from what I've seen I'd seriously doubt if we're ever going to get point cloud data out of the currently shipping hardware. If we do, the fidelity will be far below what we see for gross finger and hand tracking from that device.
There are some low-cost alternatives for 3-D scanning that have started to emerge. SoftKinetic has their DepthSense 325 camera for $250 (which is effectively the same as the Creative Gesture Camera that is only $150 right now). The DS 325 is a time-of-flight IR camera that gives you a 320x240 point cloud map of the 3-D space in front of it. In my tests, it worked well with opaque materials, but anything with a little gloss or shininess gave it trouble.
The PrimeSense Carmine 1.09 ($200) uses structured light to get point cloud data in front of it, as an advancement of the technology they supplied for the original Kinect. It has a lower effective sptial resolution than the SoftKinetic cameras, but it seems to provide less depth noise and to work on a wider variety of materials.
The DUO was also a promising project, but unfortunately its Kickstarter campaign failed. It was using stereoscopic imaging from an IR source to return a point cloud from a couple of PS3 Eye cameras. They may restart that project at some point in the future.
While the Leap may not do what you want, it looks like more and more devices are coming out in the consumer price range to enable 3-D scanning.
See this link
It says that yes, Leap Motion can theorically handle point cloud and it was temporarily part of the visualiser in beta and no, you can't access it using the Leap Motion APIs right now.
It may appear in the future but it's not a priority of Leap Motion Team.
As with LeapMotion SDK 2.x one can at least access the stereo camera images! As I know by myself it is a convenient solution, for many tasks where the point cloud data was asked for. This is why I mention it here, even if it does not give the point-cloud data internally generated by the driver to extract the pointer-metadata. But now one has the capability to generate own point-cloud by yourself, this is why I think it is strongly related to the question.
Currently there is no access to the Pointcloud in the public API. But I think this video is no mock-up, so there should be a possibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYgsAMKLu7s#t=40s
Roadtovr recently reviewed the Nimble Sense Kickstarter, which is using point cloud.
It’s the same technology that the Kinect 2 uses, and it’s supposed to have some advantages over the Leap Motion.
Because it’s a depth sensing camera, you can point the camera top-down like the Touch+, although their product will not ship till next year.
I have been asked to investigate porting 10 year old Direct X (v7-9) games to OpenGL ES, initially for the iPhone
I have never undertaken a game port like this before (and will be hiring someone to do it) but I'd like to understand the process.
Are there any resources/books/blogs that will help me in understanding the process?
Are there any projects like Mono that can accomplish this?
TBH A porting job like this is involved but fairly easy.
First you start by replacing all the DirectX calls with "stubs" (ie empty functions). You do this until you can get the software to compile. Once it has compiled then you start implementing all the stub functions. There will be a number of gotchas along the way but its worth doing.
If you need to port to and support phones before iPhone 3GS you have a more complex task as the hardware only supports GLES 1 which is fixed-function only. You will have to "emulate" these shaders somehow. On mobile platforms I have written, in the past, assembler code that performs "vertex shading" directly on the vertex data. Pixel shading is often more complicated but you can usually provide enough information through the "vertex shading" to get this going. Some graphical features you may just have to drop.
Later versions of the iPhone use GLES 2 so you have access to GLSL ... ATI have written, and Aras P of Unity3D fame has extended, software that will port HLSL code to GLSL.
Once you have done all this you get on to the optimisation stage. You will probably find that your first pass isn't very efficient. This is perfectly normal. At this point you can look at the code from a higher level and see how you can move code around and do things differently to get best performance.
In summary: Your first step will be to get the code to compile without DirectX. Your next step will be the actual porting of DirectX calls to OpenGL ES calls. Finally you will want to refactor the remaining code for best performance.
(P.S: I'd be happy to do the porting work for you. Contact me through my linkedin page in my profile ;)).
Not a complete answer, but in the hope of helping a little...
I'm not aware of anything targeting OpenGL ES specifically, but Cadega, Cider and VirtualBox — amongst others — provide translation of DirectX calls to OpenGL calls, and OpenGL ES is, broadly speaking, OpenGL with a lot of very rarely used bits and some slower and redundant parts removed. So it would probably be worth at least investigating those products; at least VirtualBox is open source.
The SGX part in the iPhone 3GS onwards has a fully programmable pipeline, making it equivalent to a DirectX 10 part, so the hardware is there. The older MBX is fixed pipeline with the dot3 extension but no cube maps and only two texture units. It also has the matrix palette extension, so you can do good animation and pretty good lighting if multiple passes is acceptable.
All you Stackoverflowers,
I was wondering why GUI code is responsible for sucking away many, many cpu cycles. In principle, the graphical rendering is far less complex than Doom (although most corporate GUIs will introduce lots of window dressing). The event handling layer is also seemingly a heavy cost, however, it seems that a well-written implementation should switch between contexts efficiently on modern processors with a lot of memory/cache.
If anybody has run a profiler on their big GUI application, or a common API itself, I'm interested in where the bottlenecks lie.
Possible explanations (that I imagine) may be:
High levels of abstraction between hardware and application interface
Lots of levels of indirection to the correct code to execute
Low priority (compared to other processes)
Misbehaving applications flooding API with calls
Excessive object orientation?
Complete poor design choices in API (not just issues, but design philosophy)
Some GUI frameworks are much better than others, so I'd like to hear varied perspectives. For example, the Unix/X11 system is much different than Windows and even than WinForms.
Edit: Now a community wiki - go for it. I have one more thing to add -- I'm an algorithms guy in school and would be interested if there are inefficient algorithms in GUI code and which they are. Then again, it's probably just the implementation overhead.
I've no idea generally, but I'd like to add another item to your list - font rendering and calculations. Finding vector glyphs in a font and converting them to bitmap representations with anti-aliasing is no small task. And often it needs to be done twice - first to calculate the width/height of the text for positioning, and then actually drawing the text at the right coordinates.
Also, most drawing code today relies on clipping mechanisms to update just a part of the GUI. So, if just one part needs to be redrawn, the code actually redraws the whole window behind the scenes, and then takes just the needed part to actually update.
Added:
In the comments I found this:
I'm also very interested in this. It can't be that the gui is rendered using only the cpu because if you don't have proper drivers for your gfx-card, desktop graphics render incredibly slow. If you have gfx-drivers however desktop-gfx go kinda fast but never as fast as a directx/opengl app.
Here's the deal as I understand it: every graphic card out there today supports a generic interface for drawing. I'm not sure if it's called "VESA", "SVGA", or if those are just old names from the past. Anyway, this interface involves doing everything through interrupts. For every pixel there is an interrupt call. Or something like that. The proper VGA driver however is able to take advantage of DMA and other enhancements that make the whole process WAY less CPU-intensive.
Added 2: Ah, and for OpenGL/DirectX - that's another feature of today's graphics cards. They are optimized for 3D operations in exclusive mode. That's why the speed. The normal GUI just utilizes basic 2D drawing procedures. So it gets to send the contents of the whole screen every time it wants an update. 3D applications however send a bunch of textures and triangle definitions to the VRAM (video-RAM) and then just reuse them for drawing. They just say something like "take the triangle set #38 with the texture set #25 and draw them". All these things are cached in the VRAM so this is again way faster.
I'm not sure, but I would suspect that the modern 3D-accelerated GUIs (Vista Aero, compiz on Linux, etc.) also might take advantage of this. They could send common bitmaps to the VGA up front and then just reuse them directly from the VRAM. Any application-drawn surfaces however would still need to be sent directly every time for updates.
Added 3: More ideas. :) The modern GUI's for Windows, Linux, etc. are widget-oriented (that's control-oriented for Windows speakers). The problem with this is that each widget has its own drawing code and associated drawing surface (more or less). When the window needs to get redrawn, it calls the drawing code for all its child-widgets, who in turn call the drawing code for their child-widgets, etc.. Every widget redraws its whole surface, even though some of it is obscured by other widgets. With above mentioned clipping techniques some of this drawn information is immediately discarded to reduce flickering and other artifacts. But still it's lots of manual drawing code that includes bitmap blitting, stretching, skewing, drawing lines, text, flood-filling, etc.. And all this gets translated to a series of putpixel calls that get filtered through clipping filters/masks and other stuff. Ah, yes, and alpha blending has also become popular today for nice effects which means even more work. So... yes, you could say this is because of lots of abstraction and indirection. But... could you really do it any better? I don't think so. Only 3D techniques might help, because they take advantage of GPU for alpha-calculations and clipping.
Let's begin by saying that writing libraries is much harder than writing a stand-alone code. The requirement that your abstraction be reusable in as many contexts as possible, including contexts which you haven't though of yet, makes the task challenging even for experienced programmers.
Amongst libraries, writing a GUI toolkit library is a famously difficult problem. This is because the programs which use GUI libraries range over a very wide variety of domains with very different needs. Mr Why and Martin DeMollo discussed the requirements placed of GUI libraries a little while ago.
Writing GUI widgets themselves is difficult because computer users are very sensitive minute details of the behavior of the interface. Non-native widget never feel right, don't they? In order to get non-native widget right -- in order to get any widget right, in fact -- you need to spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking the details of the behavior.
So, GUI are slow because of the inefficiencies introduced by the abstraction mechanisms used to create highly-reusable components, that added to shortness of time available to optimize the code once so much time has been spent just getting the behavior right.
Uhm, that's quite a lot.
The most simple but probably obvious answer is that the programmers behind these GUI apps, are really bad programmers. You can go along way in writing code which does the most bizarre things and it will be faster but few people seem to care how to do this or they deem it to be an expensive non-profitable time wasted effort.
To set things straight off-loading computations to the GPU won't necessarily fix any problems. The GPU is just like the CPU except it's less general purpose and more a data paralleled processor. It can do graphics computations exceptionally well. Whatever graphics API/OS and driver combination you have doesn't really matter that much... well OK, with Vista as an example, they changed the desktop composition engine. This engine is far better composting only that which has changed, and since the number one bottle neck for GUI apps is redrawing is a neat optimization strategy. This idea of virtualizing your computational needs and only update the smallest change every time.
Win32 sends WM_PAINT messages to windows when they need to be redrawn, this can be a result of windows occluding each other. However it's up to the window itself to figure out whats actually changed. More than so nothing did change or the change that was made was trivial enough so that it could have been just preformed on top of what ever top most surface you had.
This kind of graphics handling doesn't necessarily exist today. I would say that people have refrained from writing really efficient and virtualizing rendering solutions because the benefit/cost ration is rather low/high (bad).
Something Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) does, which I think is far superior to most other GUI API is that it splits layout updates and rendering updates into two separate passes. And while WPF is managed code the rendering engine is not. What happens with rendering is that the managed WPF rendering engine builds a command queue (this is what DirectX and OpenGL does) which is then handed of to the native rendering engine. What's a bit more elegant here is that WPF will then try to retain any computation which didn't change the visual state. A trick if you may, where you avoid costly rendering calls for things that doesn't have to be rendered (virtualizing).
In contrast to WM_PAINT which tells a Win32 window to repaint itself a WPF app would check what parts of that window requires repainting and only repaint the smallest change.
Now WPF is not supreme, it's a solid effort from Microsoft but it's not the holy grail yet... the code which runs the pipeline could still be improved and the memory footprint of any managed app is still more than I would want. But I hope this is the kind of answer you are looking for.
WPF is able to do some things asynchronously rather decent, which is a huge deal if you wanna make a really responsive low-latency/low-cpu UI. Asynchronous operations is more than off-loading work on a different thread.
To summarize things slow and expensive GUI means too much repainting and the kind of repainting which is very expensive i.e. the entire surface area.
I does to some degree depend on the language. You might have noticed that Java and RealBasic applications are a fair bit slower than their C-based (C++, C#, Objective-C) counterparts.
However GUI applications are much more complex than command line apps. The Terminal window needs only to draw a simple window that doesn't support buttons.
There are also multiple loops for extra inputs and features.
I think that you can find some interesting thoughts on this topic in "Window System Design: If I had it to do over again in 2002" by James Gosling (the Java guy, also known for his work on pre-X11 windowing systems). Available online here[pdf].
The article focuses on the positive side (how to make it fast), not on the negative side (what's making it slow), but it is still a good read on the topic.
Sometimes it's difficult to describe some of the things that "us programmers" may think are simple to non-programmers and management types.
So...
How would you describe the difference between Managed Code (or Java Byte Code) and Unmanaged/Native Code to a Non-Programmer?
Managed Code == "Mansion House with an entire staff or Butlers, Maids, Cooks & Gardeners to keep the place nice"
Unmanaged Code == "Where I used to live in University"
think of your desk, if you clean it up regularly, there's space to sit what you're actually working on in front of you. if you don't clean it up, you run out of space.
That space is equivalent to computer resources like RAM, Hard Disk, etc.
Managed code allows the system automatically choose when and what to clean up. Unmanaged Code makes the process "manual" - in that the programmer needs to tell the system when and what to clean up.
I'm astonished by what emerges from this discussion (well, not really but rhetorically). Let me add something, even if I'm late.
Virtual Machines (VMs) and Garbage Collection (GC) are decades old and two separate concepts. Garbage-collected native-code compiled languages exist, even these from decades (canonical example: ANSI Common Lisp; well, there is at least a compile-time garbage-collected declarative language, Mercury - but apparently the masses scream at Prolog-like languages).
Suddenly GCed byte-code based VMs are a panacea for all IT diseases. Sandboxing of existing binaries (other examples here, here and here)? Principle of least authority (POLA)/capabilities-based security? Slim binaries (or its modern variant SafeTSA)? Region inference? No, sir: Microsoft & Sun does not authorize us to even only think about such perversions. No, better rewrite our entire software stack for this wonderful(???) new(???) language§/API. As one of our hosts says, it's Fire and Motion all over again.
§ Don't be silly: I know that C# is not the only language that target .Net/Mono, it's an hyperbole.
Edit: it is particularly instructive to look at comments to this answer by S.Lott in the light of alternative techniques for memory management/safety/code mobility that I pointed out.
My point is that non technical people don't need to be bothered with technicalities at this level of detail.
On the other end, if they are impressed by Microsoft/Sun marketing it is necessary to explain them that they are being fooled - GCed byte-code based VMs are not this novelty as they claim, they don't solve magically every IT problem and alternatives to these implementation techniques exist (some are better).
Edit 2: Garbage Collection is a memory management technique and, as every implementation technique, need to be understood to be used correctly. Look how, at ITA Software, they bypass GC to obtain good perfomance:
4 - Because we have about 2 gigs of static data we need rapid access to,
we use C++ code to memory-map huge
files containing pointerless C structs
(of flights, fares, etc), and then
access these from Common Lisp using
foreign data accesses. A struct field
access compiles into two or three
instructions, so there's not really
any performance. penalty for accessing
C rather than Lisp objects. By doing
this, we keep the Lisp garbage
collector from seeing the data (to
Lisp, each pointer to a C object is
just a fixnum, though we do often
temporarily wrap these pointers in
Lisp objects to improve
debuggability). Our Lisp images are
therefore only about 250 megs of
"working" data structures and code.
...
9 - We can do 10 seconds of Lisp computation on a 800mhz box and cons
less than 5k of data. This is because
we pre-allocate all data structures we
need and die on queries that exceed
them. This may make many Lisp
programmers cringe, but with a 250 meg
image and real-time constraints, we
can't afford to generate garbage. For
example, rather than using cons, we
use "cons!", which grabs cells from an
array of 10,000,000 cells we've
preallocated and which gets reset
every query.
Edit 3: (to avoid misunderstanding) is GC better than fiddling directly with pointers? Most of the time, certainly, but there are alternatives to both. Is there a need to bother users with these details? I don't see any evidence that this is the case, besides dispelling some marketing hype when necessary.
I'm pretty sure the basic interpretation is:
Managed = resource cleanup managed by runtime (i.e. Garbage Collection)
Unmanaged = clean up after yourself (i.e. malloc & free)
Perhaps compare it with investing in the stock market.
You can buy and sell shares yourself, trying to become an expert in what will give the best risk/reward - or you can invest in a fund which is managed by an "expert" who will do it for you - at the cost of you losing some control, and possibly some commission. (Admittedly I'm more of a fan of tracker funds, and the stock market "experts" haven't exactly done brilliant recently, but....)
Here's my Answer:
Managed (.NET) or Byte Code (Java) will save you time and money.
Now let's compare the two:
Unmanaged or Native Code
You need to do your own resource (RAM / Memory) allocation and cleanup. If you forget something, you end up with what's called a "Memory Leak" that can crash the computer. A Memory Leak is a term for when an application starts using up (eating up) Ram/Memory but not letting it go so the computer can use if for other applications; eventually this causes the computer to crash.
In order to run your application on different Operating Systems (Mac OSX, Windows, etc.) you need to compile your code specifically for each Operating System, and possibly change alot of code that is Operating System specific so it works on each Operating System.
.NET Managed Code or Java Byte Code
All the resource (RAM / Memory) allocation and cleanup are done for you and the risk of creating "Memory Leaks" is reduced to a minimum. This allows more time to code features instead of spending it on resource management.
In order to run you application on different Operating Systems (Mac OSX, Windows, etc.) you just compile once, and it'll run on each as long as they support the given Framework you are app runs on top of (.NET Framework / Mono or Java).
In Short
Developing using the .NET Framework (Managed Code) or Java (Byte Code) make it overall cheaper to build an application that can target multiple operating systems with ease, and allow more time to be spend building rich features instead of the mundane tasks of memory/resource management.
Also, before anyone points out that the .NET Framework doesn't support multiple operating systems, I need to point out that technically Windows 98, WinXP 32-bit, WinXP 64-bit, WinVista 32-bit, WinVista 64-bit and Windows Server are all different Operating Systems, but the same .NET app will run on each. And, there is also the Mono Project that brings .NET to Linux and Mac OSX.
Unmanaged code is a list of instructions for the computer to follow.
Managed code is a list of tasks for the computer follow that the computer is free to interpret on its own on how to accomplish them.
The big difference is memory management. With native code, you have to manage memory yourself. This can be difficult and is the cause of a lot of bugs and lot of development time spent tracking down those bugs. With managed code, you still have problems, but a lot less of them and they're easier to track down. This normally means less buggy software, and less development time.
There are other differences, but memory management is probably the biggest.
If they were still interested I might mention how a lot of exploits are from buffer overruns and that you don't get that with managed code, or that code reuse is now easy, or that we no longer have to deal with COM (if you're lucky anyway). I'd probably stay way from COM otherwise I'd launch into a tirade over how awful it is.
It's like the difference between playing pool with and without bumpers along the edges. Unless you and all the other players always make perfect shots, you need something to keep the balls on the table. (Ignore intentional ricochets...)
Or use soccer with walls instead of sidelines and endlines, or baseball without a backstop, or hockey without a net behind the goal, or NASCAR without barriers, or football without helmets ...)
"The specific term managed code is particularly pervasive in the Microsoft world."
Since I work in MacOS and Linux world, it's not a term I use or encounter.
The Brad Abrams "What is Managed Code" blog post has a definition that say things like ".NET Framework Common Language Runtime".
My point is this: it may not be appropriate to explain it the terms at all. If it's a bug, hack or work-around, it's not very important. Certainly not important enough to work up a sophisticated lay-persons description. It may vanish with the next release of some batch of MS products.