factory_bot VS stb

I made Factory-js inspired by factory-bot (https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot), supports Prisma and Drizzle ORM and more. TypeScript is now widely used in both backend and frontend, but there is no de facto standard factory library. I'm developing a web application using Prisma, trpc, and nextjs, but I was struggling with how to write more beautiful and readable back-end tests. That's why I made factory-js.

factory_bot: A fixtures replacement

Not sure if you want the execution speed to be faster, or the development speed. If it's development, you can use FactoryBot in a script to generate data easily once you have your factories set up.

For instance, thoughtbot/factory_bot.

> if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce.

It kinda reminds me of the factorygirl -> factorybot [0] story. It was a cute enough name for a technical tool that plays nice among bros, and down the line you end up renaming your package and deal with the drama.

On brand image, I get your point. I think the corporations doing it best tend to juggle with multiple brands and segment their market accordingly. Then yes, an homogeneous, single focus brand will be more valuable, as it also help to push people outside of the target to your other brands.

[0] https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/wiki

Not sure I follow why this question is related to an OS like Windows, but when it comes to RSpec testing with different users, I would use Factory Bot and define a User Factory and add Traits such as Admin & Non Admin and use them in specs with their pre-defined attributes to what they can access based on your User Model and call them within the specs.

The factory-bot gem is used in almost in all of our spec files and it make our set up much more easier than when we use fixtures. Here is the tradeoff, the easier the gem is to use, the more likely you’ll end up with some pain to control its usage. And when the times come to tackle slow tests, the best bet you can take is to start digging into you factories because it’s likely they are the primary reason why your test suite is slowing down

Efate is actually the second test fixture library I've written and there were several lessons I learned after using the first iteration for several years myself. The first version was influenced a great deal by factor_girl (called factory_bot now), with a heavy dependency on strings to define and create the fixtures. It also wasn't very modular. You couldn't just import a specific fixture, you had to bring in the whole library. And it wasn't very extensible, if you needed to define custom behavior for how a field should be created, it wasn't very pretty.

I work at thoughtbot, you might know us for our open source work like administrate, factory_bot or shoulda-matchers.

As we continue to level-up our skillsets as developers in Rails, the utility of POROs (Plain Old Ruby Objects) becomes more apparent and appealing. Sometimes, the business object(s) you create do not require persistent storage to a database and are, therefore, outside of the scope of an ORM (Object Relational Mapper) like ActiveRecord. But how do we maintain simplicity in our test suite and continue to leverage helpful testing libraries like FactoryBot without one? This instructional article explores how to implement factories for POROs including common pitfalls, building nested resources, and factory linting.

Have you considered not using an engine at all, in favor of libraries? There are many amazing libraries I've used for game development - all in C/C++ - that you can piece together:

* General: [stb](https://github.com/nothings/stb)

Great to see more accessible references on font internals. I have dabbled on this a bit last year and managed to have a parser and render the points of a glyph's contour (I stopped before Bezier and shape filling stuff). I still have not considered hinting, so it's nice that it's covered. What helped me was an article from the Handmade Network [1] and the source of stb_truetype [2] (also used in Dear ImGUI).

[1] https://handmade.network/forums/articles/t/7330-implementing....

[2] https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_truetype.h

So I read through the materials on mesh shaders and work graphs and looked at sample code. These won't really work (see below). As I implied previously, it's best to research/discuss these sort of matters with professional graphics programmers who have experience actually using the technologies under consideration.

So for the sake of future web searchers who discover this thread: there are only two proven ways to efficiently draw thousands of unique textures of different sizes with a single draw call that are actually used by experienced graphics programmers in production code as of 2023.

Proven method #1: Pack these thousands of textures into a texture atlas.

Proven method #2: Use bindless resources, which is still fairly bleeding edge, and will require fallback to atlases if targeting the PC instead of only high end console (Xbox Series S|X...).

Mesh shaders by themselves won't work: These have similar texture access limitations to the old geometry/tessellation stage they improve upon. A limited, fixed number of textures still must be bound before each draw call (say, 16 or 32 textures, not 1000s), unless bindless resources are used. So mesh shaders must be used with an atlas or with bindless resources.

Work graphs by themselves won't work: This feature is bleeding edge shader model 6.8 whereas bindless resources are SM 6.6. (Xbox Series X|S might top out at SM 6.7, I can't find an authoritative answer.) It looks like work graphs might only work well on nVidia GPUs and won't work well on Intel GPUs anytime soon (but, again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say this authoritatively). Furthermore, this feature may have a hard dependency on using bindless to begin with. That is, I can't tell if one is allowed to execute a work graph that binds and unbinds individual texture resources. And if one could do such a thing, it would certainly be slower than using bindless. The cost of bindless is paid "up front" when the textures are uploaded.

Some programmers use Texture2DArray/GL_TEXTURE_2D_ARRAY as an alternative to atlases but two limitations are (1) the max array length (e.g. GL_MAX_ARRAY_TEXTURE_LAYERS) might only be 256 (e.g. for OpenGL 3.0), (2) all textures must be the same size.

Finally, for the sake of any web searcher who lands on this thread in the years to come, to pack an atlas well a good packing algorithm is needed. It's harder to pack triangles than rectangles but triangles use atlas memory more efficiently and a good triangle packing will outperform the fancy new bindless rendering. Some open source starting points for packing:

https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stb_rect_pack.h

https://github.com/ands/trianglepacker

The STB headers are mostly built like that: https://github.com/nothings/stb

You could also add an optional 'convenience API' over the lower-level flexible-but-inconvenient core API, as long as core library can be compiled on its own.

In essence it's just a way to decouple the actually important library code from runtime environment details which might be better implemented outside the C/C++ stdlib.

It's already as simple as the stdlib IO functions not being asynchrononous while many operating systems provide more modern alternatives. For a specific type of library (such an image decoder) it's often better to delegate such details to the library user instead of circumventing the stdlib and talking directly to OS APIs.

My stuff for instance:

https://github.com/floooh/sokol

...inspired by:

https://github.com/nothings/stb

But it's not so much about the build system, but requiring a separate C/C++ compiler toolchain (Rust needs this, Zig currently does not - unless the proposal is implemented).

STB Libraries: https://github.com/nothings/stb

stb_ds is also very popular.