 |
Author |
Topic: just wondering (Read 366 times) |
|
Dimitre
|
just wondering
« on: Mar 11th, 2003, 10:07pm » |
|
Proce55ing helps a lot with computer graphics learning, because it ease a lot all the burocracy of programming in java.
These days I was trying to port some proce55ing codes to C++, and I was wondering how great would be if we have a interface to C++ (SDL?) as we have proce55ing, for java graphic sketches.
|
|
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: just wondering
« Reply #1 on: Mar 25th, 2003, 4:15pm » |
|
i have a version of the graphics engine that works in c++, which i will someday tie to sdl. presumably in the future (processing 2.0?) we'll also be able to export c++ (instead of just java) code, since the speed would be so much better for interactive apps.
when p5 beta rolls around, we'll be posting the code for the environment and graphics engine, at which time maybe we'll release the c++ version too.
|
|
|
|
|
benelek
 
|
Re: just wondering
« Reply #2 on: Mar 26th, 2003, 1:09pm » |
|
oooh, cant wait for the graphics engine code. should help somewhat in making more efficient sketches 
|
|
|
|
|
mmuday
|
Re: just wondering
« Reply #3 on: Mar 26th, 2003, 3:27pm » |
|
Ah... now that the topic of C++ comes up...
I've been wondering if the java-ness of Proce55ing is "coincidental", i.e., it isn't really *intended* to be running on top of a JVM but it was just awfully convenient to do so.
The reason I ask is wanting to know if straying too far into java-land (imports, using java libraries) will make my processing code "nonstandard". I'm also just interested from a design standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: just wondering
« Reply #4 on: Mar 26th, 2003, 4:59pm » |
|
it's not so coincidental.. for the work done at acg (http://acg.media.mit.edu) we've found java really useful as a fast "sketching" language, meaning that we can throw together prototypes of things really quickly and work out ideas. suitable ideas would later often be re-implemented in c++ if the additional speed was needed.
p5 is something of an evolution from that, because many of us had our own set of two pages of code that we would use to begin any of these java "sketches". aside from speed, the other shortcoming was the graphics engine, so the engine used in p5 started by taking several of my old projects and wiring together their rendering code.
basically, java is a great language that makes it easy to write things quickly. p5 attempts to improve upon that. it's biggest shortcoming is speed, and some amount of stability for long-term (days, weeks) use.. witness p5 as the memory hog.
writing more java code won't be less processing oriented, we like the fact that we can mix in java code so we don't want to discourage that at all. we just try to provide p5 as a sort of training wheels setup to make it easy to get started. as folks grow out of it (i.e. they want to do more advanced things with the mouse), they can learn the useful tidbits bit-by-bit.
we like java so much as a language, we wish we could just write from p5's version of java and compile straight to machine code, rather than having to use a jvm, so c++ wouldn't be needed. (there are projects that attempt to do this with java, but as yet, i think most offer very little performance improvement over a good jvm).
does that answer your question? that got a little rambley.
|
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: just wondering
« Reply #5 on: Mar 27th, 2003, 8:30am » |
|
i'd imagine there's another advantage to working with java too - when people get handy with the p5 language, they might start tinkering with the code for p5 itself. it'd be interesting to see what the code for p5 looks like in p5 language!
-jacob
|
|
|
|
|
|
