[ Sorry for the extremely slow reply, I'm just working through a mail backlog of about one month... ]
Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2006 22:17 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch: > what's the reason behind the HOpenGL gears only being about 2/3 as fast as > glxgears on my computer? Since I don't use any 3D acceleration, I thought > that most of the CPU's time is spend for rendering and displaying so that > speed differences between Haskell and C shouldn't matter that much. An almost identical issue was discussed on the HOpenGL mailing list some time ago: http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/hopengl/2004-March/000476.html The net result is: There is no measurable speed difference compared to plain old C when using Haskell + HOpenGL. Another nice project to look at: http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell/2005-November/016941.html Having said this, one should mention that there are plenty of reasons for bottlenecks when doing graphics in OpenGL in general: The application performance can be limited by the CPU, memory bandwidth, the GPU on the graphics card, pixel bandwidth, etc. The least thing I would worry about would be Haskell or the HOpenGL package. :-) Rendering terrain efficiently is a rather tricky topic, so one can find tons of books and papers on it, and I guess it still has enough potential to give material for several PhD dissertations. If your students are new to Haskell, OpenGL and terrain rendering algorithms, this might be a little bit too much IMHO. Regarding documentation: The OpenGL package documentation is admittedly sometimes a bit terse, it ranges from no comments at all (i.e. only things that Haddock can generate automatically) to rather elaborate, e.g.: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/OpenGL/Graphics-Rendering-OpenGL-GL-Points.html http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/OpenGL/Graphics-Rendering-OpenGL-GL-LineSegments.html The OpenGL 1.5 spec is about 333 pages, and translating this into Haddock comments is a huge amount of work, so I comment only from time to time (a slow, but ongoing process). But the main idea here is that the OpenGL binding resembles the C API closely enough that everybody who knows the spec should have no problem at all writing OpenGL stuff in Haskell. Therefore the whole module structure and naming is designed to closely follow the spec, compare e.g. http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/OpenGL/Graphics-Rendering-OpenGL-GL.html with the index of the OpenGL 1.5 spec. Furthermore, the GLUT package has quite a few examples to get everyone started. If there are still problems, there is still the hopengl list and I'll happily clarify any unclear points. The GLUT package is structured similarly, but fully documented: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/GLUT/Graphics-UI-GLUT.html In general, I think it is a good idea for any binding to follow the structure of the original spec as closely as possible. Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
