On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 19:50:42 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
A component-entity architecture has two main advantages;
one of them is efficiency/cache locality (which this project doesn't have at all). Another is the ability to quickly define new types without the clusterfuck that happens if you try to use OOP to design game entities (and also to define them in plain data types).

This thing is ported from Java where performance didn't seem to be a concern (even though they're calling it 'lightweight' for some reason). There are even component-entity frameworks for Ruby, Actionscript, etc, where there is no way at all to utilize cache locality.

I think this might be useful if you're creating a game that doesn't need the best graphics and when a little latency isn't a problem (e.g. turn-based strategy, adventure, etc.).

(I'm not the developer of artemisd, but I'm working on a similar design, although with a bit more compile time, cache-aware and hopefully auto-threadable; but also much less flexible, more 'purist' (not likely to be released as a separate library, either))

The second advantage is far more important IMO, I've been using Unity3D for my work for several years and I think its component based design play a significant role to its success technically,(refer to its assets store, so many third party components developed and can be easily reused). OTOH, given its C#/Mono nature, performance is not that important in reality in an app layer which an entity system is supposed to reside in. However, as a C programmer I also cann't ignore it if there be any performance loss by design.

Reply via email to