> I was never satisfied with pygame's performance, and as a die-hard
> python-er it made me sad. I hope this project turns out better!
>
> Would be curious to know if it has gotten better? Last I checked they
> were still on 1.9.1, which was from 2009.
PyGame will not change performance-wise in the foreseeable future. The way
the 2D graphics is made, performance is all up to the way the application
draws and updates the screen. PyGame and Python add very little overhead
there -- so not much space for improvement.
Of course, if you compare that to the OpenGL games that have no problems
juggling thousands of sprites and doing full-screen updates with multiple
parallax effects at 50 FPS, then it may seem that PyGame is slow. However,
PyGame games are able to run on OLPC and other rather weak platforms with
pretty good performance -- something those OpenGL games are not able to do.
So in the end it boils down to the choice of technology. If you want your
game to have great effects and high resolution, and run only on computers
with good graphics cards -- go for PyOpenGL, Pyglet, Cocos2d, Pygrafix or
other library that utilises the graphic card's 3D acceleration. If you are
OK with frame rates in the dozens of FPS, non-fullscreen windows or you don't
require full screen update every frame, then PyGame is a good choice, as it
lets your program run on a much broader range of hardware (there is even a
PyGame subset for Adnroid).
Personally, I use PyGame simply because it is convenient to me and works
close to the way I think. Even when I use other libraries for graphics, I
still like to use PyGame's Rect data type and its time-handling utilities.
I didn't have any problem with performance at the speed that roguelike games
require.
--
Radomir Dopieralski,
sheep.art.pl