On 8 June 2015 at 13:15, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>
>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>> marketing.
>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest out of
>> the sky.
>>
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>
>> lets get OT, please discuss
>
>
> I think a std.bindings or something similar for ubiquitous C libraries would go a long way - _quality_(not just a wrapper) SDL, OpenGL, etc bindings.
>
> D is very attractive to game developers, I think with a little push it would get a lot of traction from this.

I've been humoring the idea of porting my engine to D. It's about 15
years of development, better/cleaner than most proprietary engines
I've used at game studios.
I wonder if there would be interest in this? Problem is, I need all
the cross compilers to exist before I pull the plug on the C code... a
game engine is no good if it's not portable to all the consoles under
the sun. That said, I think it would be a good case-study to get the
cross compilers working against.

On 8/06/2015 3:48 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 13:08, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 8/06/2015 2:50 p.m., Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>>>> marketing.
>>>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest
>>>> out of the sky.
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>>>
>>>> lets get OT, please discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> Would love some kind of color implementation in Phobos, simple linear
>>> algebra(vectors, matrices), image manipulation.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2845 Heyyyy Manu, hows
>> it going?
>
> I've kinda just been working on it on the side for my own use.
> I wasn't happy with the layout, and restructured it a lot.
> If there's an active demand for it, I'll give it top priority...?

Like I said its a blocker for an image library. There's no point implementing an image library with a half baked color definition meant for phobos.

The long term issue is that we cannot really move forward with anything related to GUI or game development into phobos without it.
So preferably we can get it into phobos by the end of the year :)

On 8/06/2015 3:53 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 13:15, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>>
>>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>>> marketing.
>>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest out of
>>> the sky.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>>
>>> lets get OT, please discuss
>>
>>
>> I think a std.bindings or something similar for ubiquitous C libraries would
>> go a long way - _quality_(not just a wrapper) SDL, OpenGL, etc bindings.
>>
>> D is very attractive to game developers, I think with a little push it would
>> get a lot of traction from this.
>
> I've been humoring the idea of porting my engine to D. It's about 15
> years of development, better/cleaner than most proprietary engines
> I've used at game studios.
> I wonder if there would be interest in this? Problem is, I need all
> the cross compilers to exist before I pull the plug on the C code... a
> game engine is no good if it's not portable to all the consoles under
> the sun. That said, I think it would be a good case-study to get the
> cross compilers working against.

I'm definitely interested. Imagine getting something like that into phobos! Would be utterly amazing for us.
Or atleast parts of it, once D-ified.

Although might be worth doing tests using e.g. ldc to see how many platforms you can actually get working.
Then perhaps an acceptance criteria before you port it?

On 8 June 2015 at 13:54, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 8/06/2015 3:48 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> On 8 June 2015 at 13:08, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/06/2015 2:50 p.m., Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>>>>> marketing.
>>>>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest
>>>>> out of the sky.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>>>>
>>>>> lets get OT, please discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would love some kind of color implementation in Phobos, simple linear algebra(vectors, matrices), image manipulation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2845 Heyyyy Manu,
>>> hows
>>> it going?
>>
>>
>> I've kinda just been working on it on the side for my own use.
>> I wasn't happy with the layout, and restructured it a lot.
>> If there's an active demand for it, I'll give it top priority...?
>
>
> Like I said its a blocker for an image library. There's no point implementing an image library with a half baked color definition meant for phobos.

Yeah, that's fine. Is there an initiative for a phobos image library? I have said before that I'm dubious about it's worth; the trouble with an image library is that it will be almost impossible to decide on API, whereas a colour is fairly unambiguous in terms of design merits.


> The long term issue is that we cannot really move forward with anything
> related to GUI or game development into phobos without it.
> So preferably we can get it into phobos by the end of the year :)

Yeah, I agree it's a sore missing point, which is why I started
working on it ;) ... I'll make it high priority.
I recently finished up various work on premake5, so I can work on this now.

On 8 June 2015 at 13:59, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 8/06/2015 3:53 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> On 8 June 2015 at 13:15, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>>>> marketing.
>>>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest out
>>>> of
>>>> the sky.
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>>>
>>>> lets get OT, please discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think a std.bindings or something similar for ubiquitous C libraries
>>> would
>>> go a long way - _quality_(not just a wrapper) SDL, OpenGL, etc bindings.
>>>
>>> D is very attractive to game developers, I think with a little push it
>>> would
>>> get a lot of traction from this.
>>
>>
>> I've been humoring the idea of porting my engine to D. It's about 15
>> years of development, better/cleaner than most proprietary engines
>> I've used at game studios.
>> I wonder if there would be interest in this? Problem is, I need all
>> the cross compilers to exist before I pull the plug on the C code... a
>> game engine is no good if it's not portable to all the consoles under
>> the sun. That said, I think it would be a good case-study to get the
>> cross compilers working against.
>
>
> I'm definitely interested. Imagine getting something like that into phobos!
> Would be utterly amazing for us.
> Or atleast parts of it, once D-ified.

I can't really see a place for many parts in phobos...
large parts of it are hardware/platform abstraction; would depend on
many system library bindings present in phobos.


> Although might be worth doing tests using e.g. ldc to see how many platforms
> you can actually get working.
> Then perhaps an acceptance criteria before you port it?

Yeah, it's a lot of work to do unit tests for parallel runtime systems
that depend almost exclusively on user input or large bodies of
external data... and where many of the outputs don't naturally
feedback for analysis (render output, audio output). I can see a unit
test framework being more code than most parts of the engine ;) .. not
that it would be bad (it would be awesome!), I just can't imagine a
simple/acceptable design.
The thing I'm most happy about with Fuji is how relatively minimal it
is (considering its scope and capability).

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 03:48:14 UTC, Manu wrote:

> I've kinda just been working on it on the side for my own use.
> I wasn't happy with the layout, and restructured it a lot.
> If there's an active demand for it, I'll give it top priority...?

I'm interested in this library as well.

Mike

On 8/06/2015 4:05 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 13:54, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 8/06/2015 3:48 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 June 2015 at 13:08, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
>>> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/06/2015 2:50 p.m., Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>>>>>> marketing.
>>>>>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest
>>>>>> out of the sky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lets get OT, please discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would love some kind of color implementation in Phobos, simple linear
>>>>> algebra(vectors, matrices), image manipulation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2845 Heyyyy Manu,
>>>> hows
>>>> it going?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've kinda just been working on it on the side for my own use.
>>> I wasn't happy with the layout, and restructured it a lot.
>>> If there's an active demand for it, I'll give it top priority...?
>>
>>
>> Like I said its a blocker for an image library. There's no point
>> implementing an image library with a half baked color definition meant for
>> phobos.
>
> Yeah, that's fine. Is there an initiative for a phobos image library?
> I have said before that I'm dubious about it's worth; the trouble with
> an image library is that it will be almost impossible to decide on
> API, whereas a colour is fairly unambiguous in terms of design merits.

I agree that it is. But we will need to move past this for the betterment of our ecosystem.
Without it we will suffer too much.

As it is, Devisualization.Image will have a new interface once std.image.color is pulled. So it'll be a contender for std.image.

>> The long term issue is that we cannot really move forward with anything
>> related to GUI or game development into phobos without it.
>> So preferably we can get it into phobos by the end of the year :)
>
> Yeah, I agree it's a sore missing point, which is why I started
> working on it ;) ... I'll make it high priority.
> I recently finished up various work on premake5, so I can work on this now.

Sounds good, I was getting worried that you had stopped altogether.

On 8/06/2015 4:12 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 13:59, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 8/06/2015 3:53 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 June 2015 at 13:15, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
>>> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 18:27:16 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phobos is awesome, the libs of go, python and rust only have better
>>>>> marketing.
>>>>> As discussed on dconf, phobos needs to become big and blow the rest out
>>>>> of
>>>>> the sky.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP80
>>>>>
>>>>> lets get OT, please discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think a std.bindings or something similar for ubiquitous C libraries
>>>> would
>>>> go a long way - _quality_(not just a wrapper) SDL, OpenGL, etc bindings.
>>>>
>>>> D is very attractive to game developers, I think with a little push it
>>>> would
>>>> get a lot of traction from this.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been humoring the idea of porting my engine to D. It's about 15
>>> years of development, better/cleaner than most proprietary engines
>>> I've used at game studios.
>>> I wonder if there would be interest in this? Problem is, I need all
>>> the cross compilers to exist before I pull the plug on the C code... a
>>> game engine is no good if it's not portable to all the consoles under
>>> the sun. That said, I think it would be a good case-study to get the
>>> cross compilers working against.
>>
>>
>> I'm definitely interested. Imagine getting something like that into phobos!
>> Would be utterly amazing for us.
>> Or atleast parts of it, once D-ified.
>
> I can't really see a place for many parts in phobos...
> large parts of it are hardware/platform abstraction; would depend on
> many system library bindings present in phobos.
>
>
>> Although might be worth doing tests using e.g. ldc to see how many platforms
>> you can actually get working.
>> Then perhaps an acceptance criteria before you port it?
>
> Yeah, it's a lot of work to do unit tests for parallel runtime systems
> that depend almost exclusively on user input or large bodies of
> external data... and where many of the outputs don't naturally
> feedback for analysis (render output, audio output). I can see a unit
> test framework being more code than most parts of the engine ;) .. not
> that it would be bad (it would be awesome!), I just can't imagine a
> simple/acceptable design.
> The thing I'm most happy about with Fuji is how relatively minimal it
> is (considering its scope and capability).

They would have to be manual tests.
So e.g. throws exceptions happily and uses threads kind of thing.
But where you load it up and run it.

It could help the ldc and gdc guys know what is still missing for this use case.

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 04:05:23 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Yeah, that's fine. Is there an initiative for a phobos image library?
> I have said before that I'm dubious about it's worth; the trouble with
> an image library is that it will be almost impossible to decide on
> API, whereas a colour is fairly unambiguous in terms of design merits.

Personally I would just be happy with a d wrapper for something like freeimage being included.

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 04:21:45 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>
> Personally I would just be happy with a d wrapper for something like freeimage being included.

That's what Deimos is for (https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/FreeImage).

Mike