Emuforums.com - View Single Post

emuboss · August 11th, 2008

I don't think there are many benchmarks comparing the two bindings, however I do remember one from the jake 2 site (port of quake 2 to java) over at

Bytonic Software

One of the key differences with LWJGL is that it is a lot more free of AWT while JOGL is pretty much tied to it. AWT brings a lot of bloat and isn't really optimal for games. Another advantage of being free of AWT is that this allows for small and easy compilation using GCC, so you can basically compile your java application into pure native code (e.g. produce an exe file).

As for OpenAL, the user doesn't need to install anything, all dependancies are included since OpenAL-Soft is used, this will automatically use any backend hardware acceleration where available such as DirectSound, Alsa, OSS, etc otherwise it'll fall back to software mode.

August 11th, 2008	#43 (permalink)
emuboss Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7	I don't think there are many benchmarks comparing the two bindings, however I do remember one from the jake 2 site (port of quake 2 to java) over at Bytonic Software One of the key differences with LWJGL is that it is a lot more free of AWT while JOGL is pretty much tied to it. AWT brings a lot of bloat and isn't really optimal for games. Another advantage of being free of AWT is that this allows for small and easy compilation using GCC, so you can basically compile your java application into pure native code (e.g. produce an exe file). As for OpenAL, the user doesn't need to install anything, all dependancies are included since OpenAL-Soft is used, this will automatically use any backend hardware acceleration where available such as DirectSound, Alsa, OSS, etc otherwise it'll fall back to software mode.