>> but the ability of engines like Bevy to analyze system dependencies and automatically scale to multiple CPUs is a big deal

>> Is it? The article addresses that, and basically calls it a pointless feature

> You can see that all the CPUs are being maxed out.

You're missing the forest for the trees - the poster above basically said "seeing all the CPUs being maxed out is a pointless feature" and you reply with "but see, all the CPUs are being maxed out".

You're literally ignoring the complaint and replying with marketing.

The problem is that most of the gameplay code is linear, and people have already gotten good at splitting parallel work across threads. Serious physics engines (see jolt) are already designed to run on another thread and distribute the work across multiple cores. The main part of graphics drivers when using opengl or vulkan run on another thread and the UI you access just passes data to it. Rust's parallelism hasn't proven to be faster than C/C++, let alone less annoying to achieve.

The context of this article, and my comment, is game development. Not game performance or engine optimization, which while related seem like related but smaller aspects of the overall topic.

The way I interpret the claims is that bevy is putting far too much focus on performance and multi-threading when by far the important thing to focus on for game development is allowing the actual game developers to rapidly iterate.

Bevy might be very fast and performant, but if that seems to have come at the cost of (or been optimized for over) features that make it easier to use in ways that game developers need, then the criticism may have merit. Whether that's true or not I don't know, but hopefully that explains why a response about how it definitely can use lots of threads and make good use of many cores isn't really seen as a good rebuttal to the criticisms leveled.

That makes no difference if the game is boring.