Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] 'real-time' ocaml RE: ocaml, simd, & fftwgel
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Gurr, David (MED, self) <David.Gurr@m...>
Subject: [Caml-list] 'real-time' ocaml RE: ocaml, simd, & fftwgel

John Max Skaller:
> Gurr, David (MED, self) wrote:
> >About memory allocation, real time code should not be doing memory
> >allocation in the real time section.  
> >
> Huh? Which parts of a real time interactive game aren't real time??
> The whole thing, from gameplay interaction to graphics and sound,
> must be done in 'real-time'.
(My previous statement was prefixed by IMHO, as is the following.)

I agree with Damien that games are not real time.  As
for 'real-time' in quotes, games and real-time programs have 
initialization, finialization, and reconfiguration code that is
not 'real-time'.  This code can easily be more complex than 
the 'real-time' section.  Also, if you know that your 'real-time'
code will only allocate a finite amount of memory between these
sections, you can allocate in the 'real-time' section, but 
when you get back to a non-'real-time' section force a garbage 
collection, check to see that there is enough free memory to 
get you through to the next non-'real-time' section
and continue (or fail).  In short, pretty much what I would
do when doing it in C.

> Frankly, Ocaml would improve games enormously by allowing
> programmers to concentrate on what really matters: algorithms
> and programmer structure.

I think you are correct.  If I were faced with writting a game
I would certainly give it a go.  

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: