[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu3dkit-discuss] Coin 3D library

From: Philippe C . D . Robert
Subject: Re: [Gnu3dkit-discuss] Coin 3D library
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:26:07 +0100


sorry for the late answer and slow progress - I am being swamped with work currently...sigh

On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 04:11  Uhr, Brent Gulanowski wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 04:09  AM, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:
it's of course always good to know other approaches. Inventor has a good design IHMO, esp. for a C++ toolkit - I 'borrowed' the concept of actions from Inventor, actually. But when diving into it, please be aware that the choice of the language affects the design a lot!

OK. I certainly prefer Objective-C to C++. I'd have thought, though, that you could divide up the features of a software product and say, "These are language specific, and those are language independent." As for other approaches, it's not only good for me to study them, it is essential.

So far, I have rough ideas on how dynamic messaging will be beneficial. And categories are very useful. But I have not thought of anything as dramatic as what is in OpenStep, like the responder chain, or class clusters. 3DKit takes advantage delegation. My reading says that delegation is just a "better" multiple inheritance. What other Objective-C features can we leverage?

Protocols, notifications, categories, ... there are a lot of these language and API features which will lead to a different design. The question is IMHO how much can we make use of these features considering our performance constraints which we have when doing interactive graphics.

As an example, while I like Inventor I dislike the amount of classes which come with it. I hope that a good design will lead to a small but flexible and powerful code base.

Philippe C.D. Robert

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]