stb VS pottery

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.

Pottery - The page for open hash map reads "Documentation still needs to be written. In the meantime check out the examples."

"Using macros" is a broad description that covers multiple paradigms. There are libraries that use macros in combination with typed pointers and functions that take void* parameters to provide some degree of API genericity and type safety at the same time (e.g. stb_ds and, as you mentioned, my own CC). There are libraries that use macros (or #include directives) to manually instantiate templates (e.g. STC, M*LIB, and Pottery). And then there are libraries that are implemented entirely or almost entirely as macros (e.g. uthash).

The prototype of CC used this mechanism to provide a generic API for types instantiated via templates (so basically like other container libraries, but with an extendible-_Generic-based API laid over the top of the generated types). This approach has some significant advantages over the approach CC now uses, but I got a bit obsessed with eliminating the need to manually instantiate templates.

I think it's common for C programmers to roll their own. I did the same [0].

I went pretty deep into composable C templates to build mine so it's more powerful than most. The containers can handle non-bitwise-movable types with full C++-style lifecycle functions and such, and the sort algorithms can handle dynamic and non-contiguous arrays (they are powerful enough to implement qsort() [1], which is more than I can say for any other C sort templates I've seen.) My reasoning for the complexity at the time was that any powerful container library is going to be reasonably complex in implementation (as anyone who's looked at STL source code knows), so it just needs to be encapsulated behind a good interface.

I'm not so sure that's true anymore. These sorts of simpler libraries like the one linked here definitely seem to be more popular among C programmers. I think if people are using C, it's not just the C++ language complexity they want to get away from, but also the implementation complexity of libraries and such. There's a balance to be had for sure, and I think the balance varies from person to person, which is why no library has emerged as the de facto standard for containers in C.

[0]: https://github.com/ludocode/pottery

Yes! The include style of templates in C is way better than the old way of huge macros to instantiate code. The template code can look mostly like idiomatic C, it interacts way better with a debugger, it gives better compiler errors... everything about it is better and it's finally starting to become more popular.

I've open sourced my own C template library here:

https://github.com/ludocode/pottery

Not only does it use the #include style of templates, but it actually makes the templates composable. It takes this idea pretty far, for example having a lifecycle template that lets you define operations on your type like move, copy, destroy, etc. This way the containers can fully manage the lifecycles of your types even if they're not bitwise movable.

There's also this other more popular C template library, one that tries to more directly port C++ templates to C but with a lot less features:

https://github.com/glouw/ctl/

This article doesn't really make it clear but the merge sort discussion is specifically about glibc's implementation of qsort(). glibc's qsort() and Wine's qsort() are the only ones I know of that use merge sort to implement qsort(). Most implementations use quick sort.

I recently did my own benchmarking on various qsort()s since I was trying to implement a faster one. The various BSDs and macOS qsort() are all faster than glibc at sorting integers and they don't allocate memory:

https://github.com/ludocode/pottery/tree/master/examples/pot...

Of course sorting is much faster if you can inline the comparator so a templated sort algorithm is always going to be faster than a function that takes a function pointer. But this does not require C++; it can be done in plain C. The templated intro_sort from Pottery (linked above) is competitive with std::sort, as are the excellent swensort/sort templates:

https://github.com/swenson/sort