More

azhenley · 2026-03-08T04:37:05 1772944625

I was trying to compare the two. At first glance, MonoGame has far more stars and recent commits. Or is it just in maintenance mode?

rienbdj · 2026-03-08T10:20:20 1772965220

FNA is for porting /supporting XNA games with minimal changes.

MonoGame is trying to evolve XNA in small ways.

For a new project I would pick MonoGame.

PacificSpecific · 2026-03-08T05:02:42 1772946162

I believe FNA is trying to be more loyal to the original XNA while my monogame tends to introduce new features.

I've been happy with monogame when I used it in the past. I'm pretty sure Celeste was made with FNA

loufe · 2026-03-08T06:53:40 1772952820

You might be mistaken, the Monogame Github README cites Celeste as an example made with it.

PacificSpecific · 2026-03-08T07:12:32 1772953952

Ah weird. Did a bit of searching and it looks like maybe it targeted multiple frameworks with the xna API. Including xna itself

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Celeste https://celeste.ink/wiki/Version_history

debugnik · 2026-03-08T08:05:16 1772957116

Several games used to target Monogame for consoles but XNA for PC, and later FNA for PC.

Monogame on PC used to be somewhat buggy in my hobbyist experience.

PacificSpecific · 2026-03-08T09:06:27 1772960787

Oh interesting. I never hit any walls personally but I guess I didn't push that hard.

pjmlp · 2026-03-08T10:45:35 1772966735

XNA was originally designed for XBox Live Arcade indie titles.

azhenley · 2026-02-25T18:28:21 1772044101

It was a convention to denote a variation or version. Not sure how the trend started though.

azhenley · 2026-02-16T03:00:10 1771210810

A few of my games from 2009 are on here! Very cool.

azhenley · 2026-02-10T15:13:29 1770736409

You deduct the expenses you paid, not the income you hoped to earn.

azhenley · 2026-02-02T02:07:13 1769998033

> we use 256-bit integers in our hot paths and go up to 564 bits for certain edge cases.

Why 564 bits? That’s 70.5 bytes.

pavon · 2026-02-02T13:56:59 1770040619

I wonder if it was 5*64 bits that got mangled in editing. If 256 bits is sufficient for most of their code, I could see there being corner cases that need a few more bits but moving to 512 bits would be overkill.

wavemode · 2026-02-02T03:56:58 1770004618

Maybe it's a typo for 512. I'm not even sure how you would achieve 564 in this context.

PhilipTrettner · 2026-02-06T13:39:15 1770385155

It's actually not a typo. Our "real" internal code starts with integer bounds on the inputs (say 2^26) and then computes for each subexpression how many bits are actually needed to exactly represent that. That can even lead to fractional bits (like in "a + b + c"). The generated code then rounds up to the next 64 bit multiple.