Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
How to do this properly with OCaml?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: David Thomas <david_hd@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Games
So just simplicity of coding the algorithms?  Makes
sense enough, I was just wondering if there was
something deeper.  Thanks :)

--- Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:32, David Thomas wrote:
> > --- Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > > Many games now use quite sophisticated LOD
> algorithms
> > > and OCaml is vastly better suited to this than
> C++.
> >
> > I'm probably missing something obvious, but...
> why?
> 
> Essentially, OCaml is much better suited to the
> manipulation of complicated 
> data structures like trees and graphs than C++. In
> particular, it is much 
> easier to write such code correctly in OCaml than in
> C++.
> 
> As games have evolved, their emphasis has moved from
> blitting to simulating 
> the interactions of complicated hierarchical systems
> in real time. For 
> example, the transition from (array-based) sprites
> to (tree- or graph-based) 
> LOD polygonal models in the presence of collision
> detection.
> 
> Similarly, as scientific computing has evolved,
> emphasis has moved from 
> vector/matrix calculations to the hierarchical
> simulation of physical systems 
> (not in real time!). For example, use of the
> (tree-based) Fast Multipole 
> Method (FMM) instead of (array-based) Ewald
> summation when computing 
> long-range interactions between particles.
> 
> This is easily explained with a little computer
> science: We're now close 
> enough to the asymptote that asymptotic algorithmic
> complexity has become 
> more important than the constant prefactor. We know
> that trees, graphs and 
> many other non-trivial data structures facilitate
> common operations (e.g. 
> search, insert, replace) with considerably better
> asymptotic complexities 
> (e.g. O(log n) instead of O(n)). So we're ditching
> arrays in favour of trees 
> and graphs and, consequently, we should be ditching
> C++ in favour of OCaml.
> 
> This is exactly the topic of my book "Objective CAML
> for Scientists". Hence, I 
> think I'm a suitable candidate for writing
> "Objective CAML for Games". :-)
> 
> -- 
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
> Objective CAML for Scientists
>
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs