Are partial ports feasable? - Archive-2 (General Forum) - Archives - Wings3D - Official Development Forum - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Are partial ports feasable?

Author	Comment
scratchy7	Are partial ports feasable?	Lead	[-]
(05/04/02 06:37:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None A C++ port of Wings3D would be great, but obviously no one is going to touch it when the changes are so dynamic. But is it possible for cpu intensive parts of the code that are maybe a bit more stable (change wise) to be written in C++ to give Wings that 'Nendo speed'. I'm not a programmer, so that's why I'm asking..........
cookepuss	Hmmmm....	#1	[-]
(05/04/02 15:50:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	My suggestion is that anybody willing to do it should wait until it Wings3D hits 1.0. By then, new releases won't be seperated by days, but by several months. That'd give any intrepid programmer ample time to implement a complete port. After all, who wants a partial port? Would you be content with incomplete software? I know that I wouldn't.
KayosIII	Other optimisations first	#2	[-]
(05/04/02 20:28:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I am sure there are lots of other optimisations that can be made before we even think of going to C++.
GetaVe	Re: Other optimisations first	#3	[-]
(05/04/02 21:06:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	is c++ like the god of all languages or something?
shahar2k	Re: Other optimisations first	#4	[-]
(05/05/02 00:36:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think that C++ is not really that big of an advantage, the reason it is faster though is because it allows more low level controll (inline assembler), and dosnt have to rely on the overhead of an interpreter like erlang, on the other hand, it is much harder to write a C++ program and it is less portable, for the same amount of work. I dont really program I just know enough C++ to write an ASCII Poker game :) dont have the patience to write code
scratchy7	Re: Other optimisations first	#5	[-]
(05/05/02 11:13:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Cookepuss : "After all, who wants a partial port? Would you be content with incomplete software? I know that I wouldn't. " Huh? I was asking if it was possible if cpu intensive parts of the code could be written in C++ to make it run faster. I dont believe I said anything about incomplete software. I would hope that if it were possible that Wings3D would still actually, you know.........work!
cookepuss	LOL	#6	[-]
(05/05/02 22:20:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well, you really didn't mean a partial port then, eh? A "partial port" automatically implies incomplete software. That's like saying that you have a partial port of Super Mario 64 from N64 to Playstation2. What you're asking for really depends on Erlang's (in)ability to access precompiled routines from a DLL. That's something I can't answer, never having programmed to any great extent in Erlang. If that is in fact possible, it'd probably make it more difficult on whoever's handling the OSX port, assuming that they want to keep the new optimizations intact. However, speaking generally, compiled code is always faster than interpreted code. C++ is not the "god" of all languages. Personally, I find straight C to be faster. C++ is just stuck on top of C. In many regards, generic C can be faster because there's overhead. All in all, the speed difference really depends on the programmer. There's no miracle language that'll save bad code or flimsy algorithms.
GetaVe	Re: LOL	#7	[-]
(05/05/02 22:28:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ok.....you lost me at "well" lol joking...........but really......im pretty lost when you started talking about c++ and c.............whats the difference...........and why have i heard of c++ more than any other language? actually i might have heard of java more...........but lets pretend i didnt.......what are algorithms? are they like in star trek? i like star trek..........lol.........being stupid.............but really why doesnt everyone just use one language.......then things would be compatable with everything.............or have i hit a big 0 on the right board?
bjorng	Some comments	#8	[-]
(05/06/02 00:02:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Erlang can be extended with "drivers", which in this context is just a DLL or shared library (.so file) written according to certain conventions. Erlang drivers are supported on all platforms, and a driver can be written portably, but you generally need different Makefile for different platforms. In general, there is quite a lot of work involved in calling C code from Erlang (compared to the ease of writing in plain Erlang). *Quote:* However, speaking generally, compiled code is always faster than interpreted code. C++ is not the "god" of all languages. That is of course true. But remember that Wings heavily depends on OpenGL, which is written in C or hardware accelerated. *Quote:* All in all, the speed difference really depends on the programmer. That is very true. I would say that a naive rewrite (complete or partial) to C/C++ could even run slower.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply