Hey Justin! It's great if you wanna port it! I'll help you on what I can!
Cheers! Caue 2010/11/7 [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cauê > > ok cool if you have scoped that area out already thats good. > > In terms of waiting for the BSP collision not sure when the next release > is, the thing is I have helped a friend on an away project and it really > annoys me because I can't opensource it but my friend has only paid like a > third of my time and has all these complex ideas, not sure it will ever see > the light of day, anyway it still needs work but not really interested in > putting time into as3 without a pay check, but I would not be so bothered if > I knew the project was haXe because that's my focus, probably does not make > any sense, but very keen to use BSP collision stuff in haXe, I guess I could > create stubs and such but again its not where I want to be. Just worried > the haXe part of away is dragging behind the as3. Many may say there is no > difference between as3, but today I read something about programming... > http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html which to me basically justifies my wish > to use haxe over as3. > > So very keen to have BSP collision in a haXe away, happy to try and help > where I can. > > Cheers > > ;j > > > > > On 7 Nov 2010, at 21:15, Cauê Waneck wrote: > > Hey Justin! > > When I was porting the engine to haXe, I tested the performance impact of > untyped vs the way it's done vs all public functions vs normal flash > namespaces. > It turns out that it doesn't have any real difference between untyped, the > way it's done, and by public functions. So it's a matter of preference. I > don't like using untyped because if something changes, we lose the compiler > warning that it did. Also I don't like public functions because it clutters > the auto-completion > > 2010/11/7 [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Cauê >> >> Well I was very surprised that my changed version worked without >> namespaces, try it. I don't believe Sandy uses namespaces. So for a lite >> engine I am not quite so convinced they are needed. Using untyped means you >> can keep access private from end users but use them internally, surely 74 >> uses must have some impact on performance especially in a few cases of where >> they are used? Maybe if you have a some harsh tests you could see if it >> makes a difference by comparing the zip I posted with the current version, >> maybe the difference is not significant. >> >> Cheers >> >> ;j >> >> >> On 7 Nov 2010, at 20:41, Cauê Waneck wrote: >> >> Hey Justin! >> >> >>> >>> If the haxe community are concentrating on just away rather than sandy, I >>> would like to see hsl or similar and bsp collision make it into the haxe >>> build, I am sure that could be implemented on the current version while Caue >>> works on molehill, well I need bsp collision anyway. >>> >> >> The plan is to release the haXe port of the main engine on the next major >> release. Can you wait on this? Porting BSP to lite wouldn't be so trivial, >> so that would mean porting the main engine's state now to haXe. >> >>> >>> Flash namespaces are slower than the way haXe does it >>>> >>> >>> Really ok, would it be worth me checking since I have both builds... what >>> might check the differences, do you have an idea on a good test, I am not >>> sure the way the injection works is as heavy as normal flash namespaces but >>> I might be wrong, also would be good to see what difference using untyped >>> and no namespace. Is there an extreme example I should throw at it? >>> >> >> I don't think that the speed will be noticeable, as the real performance >> hog are the draw calls... But anyway I can't see any good side in using >> flash namespaces! Are there? >> >> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> ;j >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
