Posted 20 June 2006 - 01:48 PM
Posted 21 June 2006 - 08:56 AM
Posted 23 June 2006 - 02:11 PM
For example: you have engine with skybox, terrain, main rendering, collisions. Each one as separate component. So if someone else is using your enginge need only knows interfaces of each component. And, if this teoretical person want to put their own code for example skybox code, all he(she) needs to do, is to write component with interfaces defined by you.
COD is more flexible and scalable. You can use OOD and COD but you don't have to.
I don't know, is that clear? My english is so horrible
Posted 23 June 2006 - 04:44 PM
Posted 24 June 2006 - 05:16 PM
Consider the UNIX environment: many small programs completely independent from each other, but designed to be combined in standard ways (pipes and command line).
Posted 26 June 2006 - 02:58 PM
Coupling and Cohesion
EDIT: Added link for people who haven't read about coupling and cohesion before
Posted 26 June 2006 - 03:04 PM
Interface driven coding *is* OOD. OOD is basically just an umbrella term for various styles of coding.
Interface driven coding usually is more prevalent in Java/C# (I believe those two languages don't allow multiple inheritance at all, but allow multiple interfaces to inherit from... Or maybe that's only Java?), although COM makes use of it as well as DirectX and the like.
What did the OP want us to do? To mention it in the Wiki? Or to have it as a 'checkbox' in the engines list?
I'd be alright with writing a quick section about it in the wiki under engineering and the like. But for beginner coders with very little OOD skills, interface coding might be a bit much to start with.
Posted 26 June 2006 - 08:12 PM
So maybe both thins?
Posted 26 June 2006 - 10:23 PM
The checkbox idea.... Well, I'd personally try and avoid having checkboxes on something that could be a rather long laundry list (Does it use Interface design? Is it Procedural? Does it make use of Functional paradigms? Etc). Ideally, if there was some easy way to quantify how modular/easy-to-modify an engine is, I'd like to see that. But scales from X-Y are highly subjective.
Also, how the code is organized/laid out *technically* can be encapsulated by your own OO wrapper. Hence why C based API's haven't died out. They might not be the preferable way for someone with an OO mind to code - but they're easily wrapped with data adaptor classes and the like.
Anyhow, that's just some of my personal feelings on the subject. Hope I didn't tread on anyones sensibilities too loudly. :)
Posted 27 June 2006 - 04:11 PM
Posted 27 June 2006 - 04:15 PM
Then use flags and display it as an int (preferably in hex). We're all developers here...
Currently working on: the 3D engine for Tomb Raider.
Posted 27 June 2006 - 04:59 PM
Anyhow, Mithrandir: my point being that we don't want a scattering of checkboxes for everything, do we? Especially since CO is simply a type of OO.
I believe the aim right now was to have a checkbox to differentiate between an OO language and a procedural one -- two big umbrella terms that could have many different implementations. Why give special consideration to CO?
Posted 28 June 2006 - 02:39 PM
What is a difference for end user between procedural and OO engine? Once again: there is much easier to replace part of engine in COD. There is more possibilities to do user-wanted changes, to update engine online if one is using COD.
If you have OO engine, you probably have hundreds of classes with different connections between them. And if you want to make changes in someone’s code... ugh... this is heavy. COD force designer to organize code in packages (components), so work with this code is simply easier. One could organize code in such a way without COD, but… how to be sure if this is done well?
I as mentioned at the beginning – I’ve check “OO” when filling form for my engine (which is pending so long...). But I wanted to be sure, why is no “CO” checkbox there. CO is now pretty popular technique everywhere, so I was little surprised
Ok... maybe it will be better to shut up now
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users