Ok, I’m sick to death of C++. I’m moving on to a higher level language of
some kind. But, my lower level 3D graphics problems are not going to go
away. Why is Ruby exciting to a 3D graphics optimization jock? And bear in
mind, I expect realism about performance issues, not pie in the sky optimism
about how “performance doesn’t matter” or “it’s always easier to prototype
in our language” like the Python crowd gives me. Some problems are lower
level than others and I want to know what Ruby has to say about lower level
problems.
Here is some anecdotal evidence that may just be me remembering things
funny.
I did a little experimenting with Ruby/SDL bindings a while back (gosh,
I think it was actually more than a year ago), while I was trying to
figure out if it was feasible to write [essentially a game] in Ruby
instead of C++. My experience was that it didn’t work very well to try
to do the whole app (with event loop et al) in Ruby, especially when I
needed things to be multithreaded. The worst place I’d see problems is
trying to synchronize graphics and sound. But what did work fairly
well was to have a C++ event loop and have Ruby embedded to handle the
game logic itself (while running Ruby in its own native thread).
The opposite approach to this problem, which I didn’t attempt, would be
to write the whole thing in Ruby, but use C++ extentions to do the
parts that were the most critical. The downside of this seems to be
that you can’t(?) use native threads. Ruby threads are good enough for
me 99.9% of the time, but they didn’t seem to work good enough back
when I tried this.
Then again, 1) I might have been doing something wrong, 2) I didn’t try that hard to optimize it in Ruby, and 3) the project I was working on
eventually diverged into something a little different, and I never got
to the point where I needed the SDL part of the software. =)
···
On Sunday 17 August 2003 7:39 pm, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
Ok, I’m sick to death of C++. I’m moving on to a higher level
language of some kind. But, my lower level 3D graphics problems are
not going to go away. Why is Ruby exciting to a 3D graphics
optimization jock? And bear in mind, I expect realism about
performance issues, not pie in the sky optimism about how
“performance doesn’t matter” or “it’s always easier to prototype in
our language” like the Python crowd gives me. Some problems are
lower level than others and I want to know what Ruby has to say about
lower level problems.
Wesley, I saw only a blank where you tried to reply.
He replied, but if you’re using Outlook Express,
it would have shown up as a .txt attachment.
This is an interaction between his mail client and
(a bug in) yours and mine.
OT: When I finish migrating to Linux, what’s everyone’s
favorite client there? Email me if you will.
Hal
···
----- Original Message -----
From: “Brandon J. Van Every” vanevery@3DProgrammer.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: Ruby for 3D graphics?
OT: When I finish migrating to Linux, what’s everyone’s
favorite client there? Email me if you will.
I’d recommend the Mozilla mail client, as it will be familiar to OE
users and it has an awesome bayesian spam filter built in. Evolution is
the most similar to Microsoft Outlook. KMail is also a pretty good
client, and a bit snappier than the other two I’ve mentioned.
Of course, hard-core command-line users will tell you MUTT is the only
way to go.
···
–
Jason Voegele
“We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us.”
– Gene Wolfe, The Book of the New Sun
If you like a nice combination of a fast GUI mail client with the
ability to access your mail from the command line, check out Sylpheed:
http://sylpheed.org/
It’s very snappy, and uses MH-style folders, so you can use all the NMH
commands from the console.
···
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:22:39 +0900 Jason Voegele jason@jvoegele.com wrote:
Hal E. Fulton wrote:
OT: When I finish migrating to Linux, what’s everyone’s
favorite client there? Email me if you will.
I’d recommend the Mozilla mail client, as it will be familiar to OE
users and it has an awesome bayesian spam filter built in. Evolution is
the most similar to Microsoft Outlook. KMail is also a pretty good
client, and a bit snappier than the other two I’ve mentioned.
Of course, hard-core command-line users will tell you MUTT is the only
way to go.
OT: When I finish migrating to Linux, what’s everyone’s
favorite client there? Email me if you will.
I’d recommend the Mozilla mail client, as it will be familiar to OE
users and it has an awesome bayesian spam filter built in. Evolution is
the most similar to Microsoft Outlook. KMail is also a pretty good
client, and a bit snappier than the other two I’ve mentioned.
Of course, hard-core command-line users will tell you MUTT is the only
way to go.
yup
(Although I just filled up my WLANs /30 with assorted PDAs laptops and servers,
so I think I’m going to bite the bullet and implement IMAP, then I can change
MUAs without breaking too much…)
···
–
We may not return the affection of those who like us, but we always
respect their good judgement.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
No way! Mutt isn’t hard-core enough for the TRUE hard-core
command-line users. They insist on mh.
mh? Bloody MUAs, always bloating & adding features you don’t need.
If you’re not using mail(1), you’re spending too much time loading
code, and not enough time reading mail.
-=Eric, and using ed(1) to write your code, too!
···
–
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
– Blair Houghton.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:32:02AM +0900, Eric Schwartz wrote:
dagbrown@LART.ca (Dave Brown) writes:
No way! Mutt isn’t hard-core enough for the TRUE hard-core
command-line users. They insist on mh.
mh? Bloody MUAs, always bloating & adding features you don’t need.
If you’re not using mail(1), you’re spending too much time loading
code, and not enough time reading mail.
No way! Mutt isn’t hard-core enough for the TRUE hard-core
command-line users. They insist on mh.
mh? Bloody MUAs, always bloating & adding features you don’t need.
If you’re not using mail(1), you’re spending too much time loading
code, and not enough time reading mail.
Consider upgrading to nail. nail is a drop-in replacement for
(Berkeley) mail that provides MIME support (missing MIME support is
one of the major shortcomings of Berkeley mail). It is available at
mh? Bloody MUAs, always bloating & adding features you don’t need.
If you’re not using mail(1), you’re spending too much time loading
code, and not enough time reading mail.
Consider upgrading to nail.
Right, next time I’ll obviously have to use explicit tags.
-=Eric
···
–
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
– Blair Houghton.
