Java-Gaming.org    
Featured games (79)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (477)
Games in Android Showcase (107)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (535)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: [1] 2
  ignore  |  Print  
  OpenMali initiative - Trying a bit of tidying about maths libs  (Read 20429 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Posted 2006-06-07 19:05:50 »

"Hey the unification guy still isn't bored to post rubbish useless threads  Shocked Shocked"

OK just kidding  Grin

This is not a project proposal as my project has been approved, here it is : OpenMali (https://openmali.dev.java.net)

There is really little content in the CVS.

The thing that pushed me to create this project is the following facts :
  • Not everyone is a Math guru. And finding Math libraries that does "just the job you want" is sometimes useful
  • Sometimes you find code that do "nearly what you want", in which case you can just copy/paste and modify it to fit your need. Anyway, you're glad you didn't have to do the initial implementation
  • Even if you have interest for Maths, some algorithms/technics/formulaes are just HARD to find. Spending 3 hours on Google may be a pleasure for some guys but not for me. If it's clearly documented in my favorite lib, then it's just easier
  • Even if you find a paper on the algorithm you want, that does not mean you're able to implement it.. and yet you may be a fine AI/gfx programmer, but you just need some physics/to know how to detect objects in a cone/anything else

This is the FIRST GOAL of this library : Provide a set of reliable, clear, and documented open-source algorithms. The license should be compatible with commercial projects, and should permit modification of the code, too. (LGPL or BSD may be fine, or maybe both).

Now for the second goal here's :
  • The widespread vecmath.jar from sun has been reported to create much, much garbage and to slow down things that could be implemented in a better performance-wise way.
  • Dave Lloyd once reported on his blog (talking about Fuze3D progress) that there was a bug in Quaternions that prevented his Cal3D port to work. He just did a workaround but if vecmath.jar was maintained that would have many headaches avoided for others programmers
  • JOODE had problems and a discussion about how to support both jME and Xith3D cause they use different vector math library.. And interfaces or factory solutions just can't fit the job : too slow
  • theKman and me have the same problem with Cal3Dj : he does jME support and I ported the whole to Xith3D and most of the work was renaming com.jme packages to javax.vecmath ones... And if he updates his code I'll be obliged to work from diffs.. not cool

So the SECOND GOAL would be, IF AND ONLY IF there is interest for that in the jME, JOODE and Xith3D communities, to "provide an open vector/matrix math library which is fast, generates as little garbage as possible, and which contains enough functionalities for the three libs I talked about".

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #1 - Posted 2006-06-07 19:10:20 »

So for the first goal I expect much people to request Developer access in order to upload their algorithms then clean&javadoc them, so we have a pretty good basis.

In the CVS there is a few examples of classes, like the Distance class or the Angle class.

For the second goal, if developers of the three proposed project would post here that'd be ideal, if not I'll contact them by mail.

I think starting on something like that would be good : http://www.objectclub.jp/download/vecmath_e

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline sunsett

Senior Member




ribbit!


« Reply #2 - Posted 2006-06-07 19:20:43 »

Does
https://vecmath.dev.java.net/
have any explicit dependencies to Java3D?
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #3 - Posted 2006-06-07 19:28:07 »

Does
https://vecmath.dev.java.net/
have any explicit dependencies to Java3D?
No

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline sunsett

Senior Member




ribbit!


« Reply #4 - Posted 2006-06-07 20:17:41 »

Then why not contribute to that instead of creating yet another math library?  I thought the issue was less that everyone was that there isn't an abstract math library, rather the opposite, that there are too many?  How is this not just adding yet one more to the problem?

-Matt Hicks
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #5 - Posted 2006-06-07 20:20:06 »

Then why not contribute to that instead of creating yet another math library?  I thought the issue was less that everyone was that there isn't an abstract math library, rather the opposite, that there are too many?  How is this not just adding yet one more to the problem?

-Matt Hicks
That's a good point and I thought about it. So the SECOND goal of OpenMali would be handled by a resurrected javax.vecmath ? Cause actually if not everyone use it it's maybe it's not fast enough or lack some functionalities.

How hard would it be to port jME to javax.vecmath ?

Anyway, the FIRST goal remain.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline sunsett

Senior Member




ribbit!


« Reply #6 - Posted 2006-06-08 00:14:13 »

why don't you just abstract out the vecmath features from jME and THEN you'd have something we can all get behind. Wink

If I recall there were some specific reasons jME decided to not go with the vecmath features there, but I don't recall exactly what they were, I agreed at the time though so I'm sure they were good. Smiley

-Matt Hicks
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #7 - Posted 2006-06-08 15:45:15 »

why don't you just abstract out the vecmath features from jME and THEN you'd have something we can all get behind. Wink
explain further.. do you mean I should contribute to vecmath the missing features that are in jME ?

If I recall there were some specific reasons jME decided to not go with the vecmath features there, but I don't recall exactly what they were, I agreed at the time though so I'm sure they were good. Smiley
I'd be pleased to know which were these... apart from an unexplainable desire to rewrite the whole world, as it seems to me jME always did.

Note to prevent flames : I didn't wanted to re-implement anything from scratch for the SECOND goal of OpenMali, just to fork to have a true open-source project.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline irrisor

Junior Member





« Reply #8 - Posted 2006-06-12 10:47:50 »

I think javax.vecmath was not used because
1. of it's license
2. the tedious process to contribute
3. it was lacking some garbage-less functions (would have to inverstigate which these are)

Regarding porting from/to vecmath to/from jME: it's quite laborious as the methods have different signatures and sometimes even require flipping parameter and called object. (e.g. it's not possible to do a simple regexp replace).

And with adding another math package I have the same concerns like sunsett. I think it would be better to work on unifying several projects under a common existing math package that could be improved.... creating a de-facto-standard is the only thing that could work....
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #9 - Posted 2006-06-12 16:37:25 »

I think javax.vecmath was not used because
1. of it's license
2. the tedious process to contribute
3. it was lacking some garbage-less functions (would have to inverstigate which these are)

Regarding porting from/to vecmath to/from jME: it's quite laborious as the methods have different signatures and sometimes even require flipping parameter and called object. (e.g. it's not possible to do a simple regexp replace).

And with adding another math package I have the same concerns like sunsett. I think it would be better to work on unifying several projects under a common existing math package that could be improved.... creating a de-facto-standard is the only thing that could work....
OK you're right.
Now for issue #1 : there's an open source implementation of the javax.vecmath API
Issue #2 : indeed because it's part of the JCP process.. but if we add sources from the open vecmath implementation into openmali it would be really easy to me to grant sufficient permissions for everyone serious that want to use&contribute to it. I don't really want to create another vecmath library, just make the open version contributable (maybe I have to ask permission or opinion to the author).
Issue #3 : if the open implementation is contributable as a java.net-project then they could be added (code borrowed from jME math library).

So ?

I'd be happy to contribute porting jME to vecmath if it's approved.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline zero

Junior Member





« Reply #10 - Posted 2006-06-12 19:26:17 »

I have a self-developed math library, which I plan to open source (see here). I don't know if it meets your requirements, but please tell me if you are interessted in joining forces. I could create a svn account, if you like..
Offline irrisor

Junior Member





« Reply #11 - Posted 2006-06-12 22:10:22 »

I'd be happy to contribute porting jME to vecmath if it's approved.
I think I have to lower your enthusiams a bit here Undecided:I don't think that this could really happen in near future. And that's because it would not just be porting jME itself but _all_ applications programmed with jME! This would mean the same for other projects which makes the plan to have a unified math library a really tough undertaking...

Probably it is possible to have library that allows adopting the library interface instead of porting to it . . .  but that's only a very vague idea . . .
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #12 - Posted 2006-06-13 14:02:10 »

I'd be happy to contribute porting jME to vecmath if it's approved.
I think I have to lower your enthusiams a bit here Undecided:I don't think that this could really happen in near future. And that's because it would not just be porting jME itself but _all_ applications programmed with jME! This would mean the same for other projects which makes the plan to have a unified math library a really tough undertaking...

Probably it is possible to have library that allows adopting the library interface instead of porting to it . . .  but that's only a very vague idea . . .
So what ? I just begin to come a bit angry about that  Angry Angry People just feel comfortable with their messy stuff and don't want to spend 1 week to refactor their code with a new math lib so they save months of pain for people trying to make their library Xith & jME-compatible............ Grr so what will we just have separate versions of everything ? Will cal3dj be forked and have separate progress for Xith and jME ? And twice as many bugs as if there was a single version.. Just can't believe it's gonna happening. So when a Gamasutra writer said games were developed *really* *really* bad with ugly ugly code and no re-use at all how right was he.
As I said I'm ready to dedicate time to do a port of jME to vecmath BUT if all the guys who use it aren't willing to take this effort then right just fine.

I have a self-developed math library, which I plan to open source (see here). I don't know if it meets your requirements, but please tell me if you are interessted in joining forces. I could create a svn account, if you like..
Please give me the URL of the existing website/SVN repo. I'm willing to take a look at it. I've always been for joining forces, whatever people said.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline sunsett

Senior Member




ribbit!


« Reply #13 - Posted 2006-06-13 14:55:57 »

You see, the reason you get angry is because you see this as "messy code" and "lacking features", but from where we stand we've got all the features already.  You are making the presupposition that multiple projects makes sense.  In the jME world we don't need Xith, we don't need Java3D, and we don't need an open-source math library.  You see an advantage to joining forces (and rightly so), but from our perspective we gain nothing except for headache in the conversion.

Further, you say "spend 1 week refactor their code".  That's all well and good in premise, but in reality jME actually has commercial game development companies using it and that has to be taken into consideration.  We have more than just the small side-project games being developed with jME and it's a LOT more than a 1 week project to refactor the math library.

The more I think about the idea of collaboration the more I understand why jME isn't collaborating with the community now, it just doesn't make sense.  Sure there is a lot of duplicated functionality, but at the same time there are benefits to seeing multiple perspectives on accomplishing tasks and being able to learn from each other.  If we collaborate on everything that is often lost.

I'm not trying to beat you down here, but what Irrisor said is very accurate.  If you really want good support, come to jME...we've got great collaboration inside our own community, but unfortunately it's not really likely to occur with all the other projects.

-Matt Hicks
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #14 - Posted 2006-06-13 16:53:30 »

You see, the reason you get angry is because you see this as "messy code" and "lacking features", but from where we stand we've got all the features already.  You are making the presupposition that multiple projects makes sense.  In the jME world we don't need Xith, we don't need Java3D, and we don't need an open-source math library.  You see an advantage to joining forces (and rightly so), but from our perspective we gain nothing except for headache in the conversion.

Further, you say "spend 1 week refactor their code".  That's all well and good in premise, but in reality jME actually has commercial game development companies using it and that has to be taken into consideration.  We have more than just the small side-project games being developed with jME and it's a LOT more than a 1 week project to refactor the math library.

The more I think about the idea of collaboration the more I understand why jME isn't collaborating with the community now, it just doesn't make sense.  Sure there is a lot of duplicated functionality, but at the same time there are benefits to seeing multiple perspectives on accomplishing tasks and being able to learn from each other.  If we collaborate on everything that is often lost.

I'm not trying to beat you down here, but what Irrisor said is very accurate.  If you really want good support, come to jME...we've got great collaboration inside our own community, but unfortunately it's not really likely to occur with all the other projects.

-Matt Hicks
Hehe. Individualist one. "Oh as long as my thing is working then let's not mind about the other ones..".. And I'm just amazed at how do you explain collaboration is just useless.
And that :
Quote
If you really want good support, come to jME...we've got great collaboration inside our own community, but unfortunately it's not really likely to occur with all the other projects.
Is just pure advertising. What do you think we do in the Xith3D team ? D'you think everyone works in its own little place ?

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #15 - Posted 2006-06-13 16:55:01 »

So there's really no way I should worry about jME compatibility when doing anything.. Because you have already everything then probably you don't need any of what I do or others (e.g. Xith folks) do.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline sunsett

Senior Member




ribbit!


« Reply #16 - Posted 2006-06-13 17:04:16 »

Individualism would be me writing my own engine.  I'm happy with the engine I use and try my best to contribute to it.  Collaboration is great in the jME community.  All I'm saying is that it isn't really feasable to expect collaboration between the different engines as they are very different and as you've seen there are just too many issues trying to reconcile them.  You accuse me of advertising, yet you and your hideously huge logos for Xith and the other thing?  You also try to play the part of the "man-in-the-middle" that wants to get everyone working together, but you're so extremely biased towards Xith you'll never get anywhere without it.

Honestly, I don't see the benefit of this debate, I was trying to explain to you the reasons why another math package is actually adding to the problem instead of solving one, but you seem to care less about having an open mind and more about pushing your opinion of "collaboration everything" when it doesn't really make sense.

I'm not going to stand in the way though if you really want to add yet another math API....doesn't hurt me any, so here my
+1

:-p
Offline irrisor

Junior Member





« Reply #17 - Posted 2006-06-13 17:33:16 »

just to note it again: _any_ 3d game engine would have severe problems with replacing their math library - you can ask around on the xith forums if they would be up to switching to another math library... I think they won't like that thought either....

I would really like to have a common math library for e.g. JOODE and jME but I simply don't see how that could be done without using jMEs maths stuff in JOODE (as JOODE is a young project).

Until someone has a really clever idea how to do it, this discussion does not lead anywhere, I fear.
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #18 - Posted 2006-06-13 21:32:17 »

Individualism would be me writing my own engine.
Wasn't it what was made with jME ?

I'm happy with the engine I use and try my best to contribute to it.  Collaboration is great in the jME community.
Great..

All I'm saying is that it isn't really feasable to expect collaboration between the different engines as they are very different and as you've seen there are just too many issues trying to reconcile them.
I don't understand all these people who say that Xith3D and jME are *very* different. Could you please explain that.

You accuse me of advertising, yet you and your hideously huge logos for Xith and the other thing?
You're right.. I'll try to reduce their size.

You also try to play the part of the "man-in-the-middle" that wants to get everyone working together, but you're so extremely biased towards Xith you'll never get anywhere without it.
Please explain more. Apart from my hideously huge logos then I even did a thread on this forum to do comparison between jME and Xith3D and I finally found Xith3D more at my convenience.

Honestly, I don't see the benefit of this debate, I was trying to explain to you the reasons why another math package is actually adding to the problem instead of solving one,
Indeed and you seems to still haven't understand what I wanted to do with open vecmath for the second goal of OpenMali : I wanted to provide it a VCS repository so it can be actually used and contributed.

but you seem to care less about having an open mind and more about pushing your opinion of "collaboration everything" when it doesn't really make sense.
Absolutely not for this discussion, you see I arrived to the conclusion it wasn't worth doing anything in the sense of jME if you're not using it (just what you said).

I'm not going to stand in the way though if you really want to add yet another math API....doesn't hurt me any, so here my
+1
As I mentioned the project is already approved and our discussion has been successful cause I decided to give up the SECOND goal of OpenMali

just to note it again: _any_ 3d game engine would have severe problems with replacing their math library - you can ask around on the xith forums if they would be up to switching to another math library... I think they won't like that thought either....
Yeah sure but that's a price to pay.

I would really like to have a common math library for e.g. JOODE and jME but I simply don't see how that could be done without using jMEs maths stuff in JOODE (as JOODE is a young project).
Undoable. Maintaining two versions of a library with two different math libs is overwork..

Until someone has a really clever idea how to do it, this discussion does not lead anywhere, I fear.
It leads to the conclusion it's not worth trying to have a bit of compatibility. And unless as you say a clever idea save you I don't see how JOODE will support jME. All abstract thingies have been considered and proven to be far too slow.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline sunsett

Senior Member




ribbit!


« Reply #19 - Posted 2006-06-14 01:05:01 »

Okay, I'm done with this conversation apart from one response I feel it necessary to make:

Quote
Apart from my hideously huge logos then I even did a thread on this forum to do comparison between jME and Xith3D and I finally found Xith3D more at my convenience.

Yes, this is what I find so laughable.  In spite of responses that show that jME is superior to Xith in every way you "found Xith3D more at my convenience".  Well, good luck with that.  Roll Eyes

-Matt Hicks
Offline zero

Junior Member





« Reply #20 - Posted 2006-06-14 04:13:47 »

I have a self-developed math library, which I plan to open source (see here). I don't know if it meets your requirements, but please tell me if you are interessted in joining forces. I could create a svn account, if you like..
Please give me the URL of the existing website/SVN repo. I'm willing to take a look at it. I've always been for joining forces, whatever people said.

I sent you a pm, please let me know when you had time to take a look at it Smiley
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #21 - Posted 2006-06-14 14:26:00 »

Okay, I'm done with this conversation apart from one response I feel it necessary to make:

Quote
Apart from my hideously huge logos then I even did a thread on this forum to do comparison between jME and Xith3D and I finally found Xith3D more at my convenience.

Yes, this is what I find so laughable.  In spite of responses that show that jME is superior to Xith in every way you "found Xith3D more at my convenience".  Well, good luck with that.  Roll Eyes
Thanks. You too.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline llama

Junior Newbie





« Reply #22 - Posted 2006-06-15 09:05:47 »

* disclaimer:
<---- jME dev.

If you'd take a look at the current state of the community(s), regarding current code, current usage of that code, licensing, etc. if you want jME to switch to your unified math library, the only solution would be to take jME's math code and work from there. That, if you did look into all these things.. would be the only reasonble thing you can expect from us, as any reasonable person would conclude.

Maybe something like that is true for Xith too,  I dunno, I'm no Xith expert.. I know enough from using it briefly there's too much I don't like about it, but -and please pay attention to this- I'm only saying this to illustrate that this absolutly does not change one damned bit, since I'm not a Xith developer or even user, and thus it's none of my buisness.

If Xith doesn't feel like switching either, for whatever reason, you have a problem. That doesn't mean you can't make your grand unified math library.. as long as you believe you have the skill, dedication and tact to make one so good we'd be stupid not to use it. You just can't reasonably expect that we believe that. Not even after Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts on the subject. Good code however, can be very convincing..

Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #23 - Posted 2006-06-15 10:20:24 »

* disclaimer:
<---- jME dev.

If you'd take a look at the current state of the community(s), regarding current code, current usage of that code, licensing, etc. if you want jME to switch to your unified math library, the only solution would be to take jME's math code and work from there. That, if you did look into all these things.. would be the only reasonble thing you can expect from us, as any reasonable person would conclude.

Maybe something like that is true for Xith too,  I dunno, I'm no Xith expert.. I know enough from using it briefly there's too much I don't like about it, but -and please pay attention to this- I'm only saying this to illustrate that this absolutly does not change one damned bit, since I'm not a Xith developer or even user, and thus it's none of my buisness.

If Xith doesn't feel like switching either, for whatever reason, you have a problem. That doesn't mean you can't make your grand unified math library.. as long as you believe you have the skill, dedication and tact to make one so good we'd be stupid not to use it. You just can't reasonably expect that we believe that. Not even after Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts on the subject. Good code however, can be very convincing..
I think the last part of your post is really ironical but I don't understand what you mean by the Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts ?? And no I don't believe that I have the skill nor tact nor knowledge to make one so good [...] if that was the case I wouldn't need java.net

@sunsett : to be fair I'll have to give jME a serious try.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #24 - Posted 2006-06-15 17:16:23 »

I'm sorry I shouldn't have been edgy about that coding habits.

I think the fact I am/was a "very biased Xith3D developer" was due to the fact I spent quite some time for Xith3D and so I feel engaged in it so I have some difficulty to accept some APIs may be better suited. But now I see clearly APIs are evoluting and sometimes die to be replaced by better alternatives.. And it's risky to bet on a single API.

Took me a while before I decided to do this post.

jME seems nice after all, and as my FPS seems pretty low in my Xith game, and Xith3D -> jME transition (+learning) seems to take not much time I decided to port my game to jME to see the difference.

However I'm willing to continue to support both libs.. Oh and BTW I changed the logos they're 40-pixels wide instead of 50 and I put one about jME so users can try by themselves (Does Java3D have a logo ?  Grin Grin )

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline Riven
« League of Dukes »

JGO Overlord


Medals: 744
Projects: 4
Exp: 16 years


Hand over your head.


« Reply #25 - Posted 2006-06-15 17:26:47 »

Offtopic:

About the logos... everybody on this forum knows what Xith and jME are and where to find them. we don't need links

Further, they are still hideously large, even at this size. But that's not the point really, they have no purpose for this audience.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾
Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings
Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #26 - Posted 2006-06-15 17:41:37 »

Offtopic:

About the logos... everybody on this forum knows what Xith and jME are and where to find them. we don't need links

Further, they are still hideously large, even at this size. But that's not the point really, they have no purpose for this audience.
OK, second person to complain I removed them.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Offline llama

Junior Newbie





« Reply #27 - Posted 2006-06-15 19:34:27 »

If Xith doesn't feel like switching either, for whatever reason, you have a problem. That doesn't mean you can't make your grand unified math library.. as long as you believe you have the skill, dedication and tact to make one so good we'd be stupid not to use it. You just can't reasonably expect that we believe that. Not even after Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts on the subject. Good code however, can be very convincing..
I think the last part of your post is really ironical but I don't understand what you mean by the Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts ?? And no I don't believe that I have the skill nor tact nor knowledge to make one so good [...] if that was the case I wouldn't need java.net
Quote

It's not ironic. It's the truth.. I'm trying to explain to you that making forum posts about how library X and library Y should be unified won't make that happen. Not even if you repeat it many times.

It's a noble endavour, and I can see the benefits of a good unified math library.. but until you make one that takes reality into account -that there's at least one (again, can't speak for Xith) well established engine out there that already has a good math library- you can't expect people to adopt your ideas, or expect them not to be skeptical.

In practise, I think it's not easy to write a good maths library (read: one better than what we have now) because you want to unify other programs. I'd have higher  hopes for someone who has a big passion for maths and wants to make a very functional and fast math library. If you think you're that last person (or both, I guess) I wouldn't want to discourage you.. a good library can hold it's own, regardess of wether jME or Xith wants to adopt it. But if you plan to just put together some existing functions and break the syntax in the process, I don't think it'll gain a lot of traction.
Offline zingbat

Senior Member




Java games rock!


« Reply #28 - Posted 2006-06-15 20:12:07 »

Yup a good math library needs to have quality. Even if it isn't as fast as other libraries fine-tuned to a certain engine it must at least provide other benefits that a math library specific to a certain engine doesn't have. It certainly helps discussing the differences and the benefits each math library offers since it's rare for engine developers to document this important info anywhere.

Another subject that would be interesting to discuss for unification would be content loaders for 3d scenes. Each engine usualy has half a douzen of specific content loaders which do exactly the some thing when parsing content. Wouldn't it be easier if we worked together to create a unified library for content loaders? At least the content parsing part would be the same for every engine and the model used to represent the parsed content in memory could be a sort of "dom" model. Leaving only the code to translate from the "dom" representation of the content to each specific engine.

There is a lot more things that can be unified for the benefit of all.

Offline Amos Wenger

Senior Member




Everything's possible, but not everything's fun...


« Reply #29 - Posted 2006-06-15 22:21:32 »

If Xith doesn't feel like switching either, for whatever reason, you have a problem. That doesn't mean you can't make your grand unified math library.. as long as you believe you have the skill, dedication and tact to make one so good we'd be stupid not to use it. You just can't reasonably expect that we believe that. Not even after Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts on the subject. Good code however, can be very convincing..
I think the last part of your post is really ironical but I don't understand what you mean by the Integer.MAX_VALUE forum posts ?? And no I don't believe that I have the skill nor tact nor knowledge to make one so good [...] if that was the case I wouldn't need java.net
Quote

It's not ironic. It's the truth.. I'm trying to explain to you that making forum posts about how library X and library Y should be unified won't make that happen. Not even if you repeat it many times.

It's a noble endavour, and I can see the benefits of a good unified math library.. but until you make one that takes reality into account -that there's at least one (again, can't speak for Xith) well established engine out there that already has a good math library- you can't expect people to adopt your ideas, or expect them not to be skeptical.

In practise, I think it's not easy to write a good maths library (read: one better than what we have now) because you want to unify other programs. I'd have higher  hopes for someone who has a big passion for maths and wants to make a very functional and fast math library. If you think you're that last person (or both, I guess) I wouldn't want to discourage you.. a good library can hold it's own, regardess of wether jME or Xith wants to adopt it. But if you plan to just put together some existing functions and break the syntax in the process, I don't think it'll gain a lot of traction.
I understand and I agree.

"Once you start working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest"
Pages: [1] 2
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 
You cannot reply to this message, because it is very, very old.

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

E.R. Fleming (19 views)
2014-07-29 03:07:13

E.R. Fleming (7 views)
2014-07-29 03:06:25

pw (39 views)
2014-07-24 01:59:36

Riven (39 views)
2014-07-23 21:16:32

Riven (26 views)
2014-07-23 21:07:15

Riven (28 views)
2014-07-23 20:56:16

ctomni231 (59 views)
2014-07-18 06:55:21

Zero Volt (50 views)
2014-07-17 23:47:54

danieldean (42 views)
2014-07-17 23:41:23

MustardPeter (44 views)
2014-07-16 23:30:00
HotSpot Options
by dleskov
2014-07-08 03:59:08

Java and Game Development Tutorials
by SwordsMiner
2014-06-14 00:58:24

Java and Game Development Tutorials
by SwordsMiner
2014-06-14 00:47:22

How do I start Java Game Development?
by ra4king
2014-05-17 11:13:37

HotSpot Options
by Roquen
2014-05-15 09:59:54

HotSpot Options
by Roquen
2014-05-06 15:03:10

Escape Analysis
by Roquen
2014-04-29 22:16:43

Experimental Toys
by Roquen
2014-04-28 13:24:22
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!