[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 |
Hi,
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.
-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip