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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-27 12:50:30

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Emil Dotchevski
<emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Comments like "oh, a redundant size in the vector won't hurt, would
> it" indicate that this isn't a game development mailing list. :)

On the other hand, we do see game developers post every now and then,
but you're right, they (we?) are outnumbered.

> I must say however that I'm not very optimistic about writing a Boost
> library for game engine use. What's the next step, a Boost game
> engine, maybe? :)

:)

This was discussed a long time ago.  The general consensus was that an
entire Boost game engine was definitely not a good idea, but perhaps
the individual building blocks were, e.g. kd-trees, oct-trees,
bsp-trees and other spatial indices, collision detection, physics,
etc...

I still think this is a good path to pursue.

> The main issue is that most software developers don't need such a
> library; only game developers do, 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. I've posted some more about this topic on my blog:
> http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode.MathLibrary.

I think this trend is starting to be reversed.  A very common reply
now at game development forums is simply "use boost", or "have you
looked at boost?".

It would be great if people could use that reply when someone asks
about spatial indices too, not just for smart pointers, function
binders, meta-programming, ptr_containers, threads, intrusive
containers, et al.

--Michael Fawcett