HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
godotengine
godot
C++2014–2026
godotengine / godot

godot

Godot Engine – Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine

100Distinct people
116Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
120.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Godot Engine – Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine

GitHub

Where it is used

  • Material Maker — Material Maker uses Godot to build its open-source application for creating materials and textures. It is a shipped app showcased by the Godot project. Source
  • Cassette Beasts — Cassette Beasts uses the Godot Engine as the game’s engine. The developers describe choosing and settling on Godot for the project. Source

What people are saying

I've been building a game part-time in Godot[0] and I contribute to the code on occasion. For the most part it has been a pleasant experience[1]. It currently does not have the…

cart_cart used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 5:58:02 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year116 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-02-10 05:36:11 UTC to 2026-07-23 17:08:42 UTC.

051015202014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 2 submissions, 1 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 1 submissions, 9 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 0 submissions, 14 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 0 submissions, 7 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 1 submissions, 13 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 18 mentions; 2 submissions, 16 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 2 submissions, 10 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 3 submissions, 11 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 1 submissions, 10 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC321
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1019
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14014
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC707
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14113
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC18216
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC12210
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14311
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11110

What Hacker News says

6 sources
>Still not convinced? How about this: A* is supposed to run in O(n*log(n)). By implementing the open list as an unsorted flat array, instead of a binary heap, its runtime changes to O(n^2). gradstudent, I understand the implications of making the algorithm more efficient. You're still not getting the point that the video I linked points towards, though. An inefficient solution works if it works well enough for enough people. When you're building an engine that contains many moving parts you don't want to spend too much time optimizing each part to the best of your abilities because if you do that you'll never have a product that people can actually do something with. That's not even to get into the main point, which is that you don't need to run the pathfinding algorithm every frame and that most of the time it actually isn't an issue. So
Read the rest
if you spend time optimizing it you spend time doing unnecessary work. The developer of the engine agrees with this notion: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/11492. Take the advice on the video to heart, gradstudent, you'll benefit from it immensely as a programmer.
In Godot Engine – Free and open-source 2D and 3D game engine
Godot 3.0 has been one year in development (since the release of Godot 2.1 in August 2016), and I wouldn't say it's in a "very early stage". It's almost feature-complete, tons of bugs have been eradicated already, and the stable release is should be 2-3 months away. As for slow developments... I don't know where you're taking that? Godot has dozens of commits every day, and the pace at which 3.0 features were implemented is honestly impressive (I'm obviously biased as a Godot dev, but check the GitHub repo [0] and the monthly progress reports on the devblog [1]). Godot has been in development since 2007, open sourced in 2014, and has had 400+ contributors [0] over 3 years vs 32 [2] for Atomic over 2 years. On the other hand, young Atomic is an overlay on the mature Urho3D project with 100+ contributors [3] and over 6 years of development.
Read the rest
Both Godot and Atomic have their strengths and weaknesses, and are IMO two great open source game engines - but as far as maturity goes, I think the sheer size of Godot (both in terms of community and git/issues/PRs activity) compared to Atomic says a lot. [0] https://github.com/godotengine/godot [1] https://godotengine.org/devblog [2] https://github.com/AtomicGameEngine/AtomicGameEngine [3] https://github.com/urho3d/Urho3D
In Godot Engine – Free and open-source 2D and 3D game engine

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.