This is not meant to be any sort of religious "my lang > your lang" discussion, or anything along those lines.
I've no big complaints about the langauge itself, or it's syntax so far. I picked C++ over C, because I'm used to working object oriented. That too has it's religious defenders and contractors - and I can definitely see it's downsides. But in the end it's a tool, and you prefer the tools you're good with, right?
All that pointer-stuff is definitely a bit difficult to get into at first, though.
Analysis showed that most frame time was lost due to lack of LOD levels and culling - causing the engine to render insanely high amounts of polygons that weren't even visible on screen.
In conclusion it seems that using the brand new engine feature DOTS (which is a perfect match for this game), successfully solved the CPU bottlenecks the first game had.
But because of Unity's DOTS <-> HDPR integration still being WIP (with several key features being experimental/missing) - they had to implement a lot of stuff on their own (including, but not limited to culling), which cost development time and caused the game to be not quite ready at release (explains missing LODs/optimization).
Worse than the long duration of copyright is that (in this case, and not just this case) it does absolutely nothing for the actual creators of the IP, but only serves to enable all those huge companies that have zero history with the IP (and often zero interest in it) - to sell and buy those rights, and maybe send some cease-and-desists, but otherwise just let them collect dust.
Copyright is no longer about protecting the rights of the original creators... but purely about allowing big companies to purchase and exploit IP created by others.
Obviously, if you are doing performance-critical code in a performance-critical application, you will be doing stuff like inlining and other things that "break" clean-code "rules".
I put that into quotes, because to me personally these aren't strict rules - but rather guidelines. And they aren't meant to be pushed to the absolute extreme - but rather be seen as methods/tools used to achieve the actual goal: easily readable, maintainable and modifiable code.
And in my workplace, "performance" isn't measured in cpu-cycles, but rather in man-hours needed to create business value. Adding more compute power comes cheaper than needing more man-hours.
For the most part, it still seems to be a good idea to train new developers to know and understand clean code. It will help them produce more stable, less buggy and more readable code - and that means the code they write will also be easier to optimize for performance, if necessary. But with my work, that sort of optimization seems only ever necessary for very small pieces of code - most definitely not the entire code base.
I've no big complaints about the langauge itself, or it's syntax so far. I picked C++ over C, because I'm used to working object oriented. That too has it's religious defenders and contractors - and I can definitely see it's downsides. But in the end it's a tool, and you prefer the tools you're good with, right?
All that pointer-stuff is definitely a bit difficult to get into at first, though.