Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal
From: Kornel Kisielewicz (kornel.kisielewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-27 12:42:08

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Emil Dotchevski
<emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The main issue is that most software developers don't need such a
> library; only game developers do,

What about academics?

> but you can't get them to agree on
> the details. I have worked in the game industry long enough to see
> that not only each team has their own "math" library that's slightly
> different than everyone else's, but also many teams periodically end
> up rewriting it.

While I agree with the experience, I disagree that it supports the
statement. Many if not most game developers also write their own
shared pointers, their own RTTI, their own threads, own filesystem
wrappers, own string classes and even own containers... from the two
commercial game engines I had a pleasure to see, those weren't better
and usually even worse than those from STL/boost. It's more about the
mentality of game programmers who usually have a very high
self-esteem, and tend to think "I'll do it better". But that doesn't
mean that there are no reasonable game programmers out there, which
are already using boost versions of the forementioned libraries, and
wish that boost included a 3d geometry oriented library also...
-- 
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz