DOOM-3-BFG VS Taskflow

The Bethesda representative said that they do not publish which OSS libraries they use but that they comply with any notice requirements. I admit, the claim on my side is somewhat thin, but there is one third party library (Base64.cpp) in DOOM 3 BFG that requires notice and states:

Even idTech 3 used third party components as listed in the description here: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG. Newer versions of idTech use Vulkan for rendering. For that, they are basically forced to included the header files of Vulkan which are licensed under Apache 2. So it has to be mentioned somewhere.

I guess you can still write valuable software, even more complex than most people can write, with simple (03) C++. Like Doom 3: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG

> What you are describing

On the other hand, I believe what you are describing is the exact meaning of FUD. In that precise order: "in C++ they have serious consequences" is fear, "There are bugs in the code--probably in your code--right now" is uncertainty, and "Some might be CVEs" is doubt.

According to https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG

Doom 3 was released in 2004. The engine has come to be known as "Id Tech 4", and it's open source. Written mostly in C++, looks like.

Id Tech 4 is currently Open Source (GPL licensed)

I believe doom 3 source is published on github so people can have a look for themselves if they want.

Doom 3 is a perennial favorite for "most beautiful C++ codebase" lists [0]

[0] https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG

For parallel programming nowadays, personally I reach for C++ Taskflow when I really care about performance, or a mix of core.async and running multiple load balanced instances when I’m doing more traditional web backend stuff in Clojure.

Also, you can take a look to good libraries. The problem is that very often libraries are heavily templated, so It could be hard. For example, I like the style of the Taskflow library, I think is very clear, is relatively small, while makes use of more advanced techniques: https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

Cool. Thanks! How does it compare to taskflow?

I've not seen yet, but it's been a bit since I looked last, any evidence of being able to build a computation graph and "save" it to re-run on new inputs. Something like https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

It seems you're describing something a generic parallel task framework. Check taskflow for a production ready example https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/blob/master/

- https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow (I recommend to learn it first since its API and documentation are excellent)

If you want some sort of "job" system, where you submit items to a some sort of queue to be processed in parallel, try searching for a thread pool - there isn't one in the standard library, but there's about a million implementations online. There are more complicated versions of that idea, that describe computation as a directed acyclic graph, such as taskflow.

The tooling decisions affect engine design though. For example if you want to have visual representation of job graph as it happened in specific frame of interest you need to pass the information around about job relationships and output it to a tool of choice. For example see https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

I am aware of DAGs of task based threading library like Taskflow and HPX however the benefit they have is not obvious to me, as the following sequential section depends on the parallel part being completed fully. If you want to suggest elaboration on the benefits of this approach would be welcome.