Browse thread
How to do this properly with OCaml?
-
Thomas Fischbacher
- Christophe Dehlinger
- Berke Durak
- Michel Quercia
- Eric Cooper
-
Michael Alexander Hamburg
-
Xavier Leroy
- Berke Durak
- Michael Alexander Hamburg
- Thomas Fischbacher
- Alex Baretta
- skaller
- Thomas Fischbacher
-
Xavier Leroy
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ 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