wolf3d
cl-autowrap
wolf3d | cl-autowrap | |
---|---|---|
8 | 8 | |
2,095 | 208 | |
3.0% | - | |
0.0 | 1.5 | |
about 12 years ago | 13 days ago | |
Python | ||
- | BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
wolf3d
- Wolfenstein 3D with a CGA Renderer
-
Historical Source Code That Every Developer Should See
There are far better historical sources to study, such as Wolf3D, the classic BSD games, or even Word 1.1.
-
Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software
It took a long time to write that engine and porting the whole thing properly also takes time. It just moves goalposts. Why didn’t he spend 80M on a new AAA game? If he spent any less than that, he certainly can’t draw any useful conclusions.
Have you ever looked over the codebase? It’s plenty large enough to draw useful conclusions from for most people let alone someone with his vast game experience.
https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/tree/master/WOLFSRC
Meanwhile, you are drawing bay conclusions with no credentials out evidence. As to actual games, setting aside the fact that Wolfenstein still sees play, loads of popular games are written in JS. Lots of others are in Java or C#. None of these make your case as Haskell, Ocaml, and StandardML (SML) are in the same performance range.
As to your argument about the efficiency of objects, what do you think functional languages use? Lets use SML as an example. There’s real arrays and they are also optionally mutable (yes, there’s linked lists too, but those can be used in C++ too).
Records are basically just C structs (they are immutable by default, but can contain refs which are mutable pointers). They can contain functions because functions are first class without the mess that many languages create.
You associate functions with datatypes which gives you the best part about methods. They also give you a kind of implicit interface too due to structural typing. I’d note that closures are mathematically equivalent to objects.
Finally, modules are everything a language like Java tries to get from classes (and more), but without any of the downsides of classes themselves.
People generally like the JS paradigm of factories and object literals (even if they hate the stuff like dynamic typing or type coercion). StandardML offers the same kinds of patterns, but with sound typing, simpler syntax without the warts, more powerful syntax, and performance in the same range as go or Java.
To me, your argument sounds like the people arguing that goto is better and more natural than looping constructs or the procedural guys arguing against OOP. I think if you messed around with StandardML, it would change your mind about what programming could be in the future.
-
Found more assembly horrors while rummaging through my backups. This time, starring quaternion arithmetic
I'm not used to seeing assembly look like this. What's the wrapper stuff? Looks like C. But I thought you could inline assembly in C like here: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/DETECT.C
-
Porting DOOM To A Forgotten Apple OS
c) The source code was pretty vanilla standard C. No huge assembly. Around 36000 lines of "normal C" (at the time, most of C games were non-portable, you would get near and far pointers or assembly shenanigans you had in Wolf3d source). Only 4 assembly functions (draw a vertical line, a horizontal one, fixed point multiplication and division), and they were already replaced by 4 standard C functions.
-
How were coded early fake 3D graphics like in 3D Monster Maze or Wolfenstein 3D ?
id software used raycasting since it's early games like Hovertank 3D, Catacomb 3D and Wolfenstein 3D. heck, even though Doom, Duke Nukem 3D and Blood were majorly using BSP, their most simple and rustic rendering base was through raycasting.
- there is a dos mod for wolf 3d that adds strafe, but it doesn't work on the expansions. Anybody know one that does or can explain how I might go about modding it myself?
cl-autowrap
-
Why Is Common Lisp Not the Most Popular Programming Language?
> Lack of access to the C libraries.
???
I recently started learning Common Lisp for fun (and fun it is!) and the ease of accessing C libraries was one of the things that surprised me in a positive way.
Using https://github.com/rpav/cl-autowrap one can simply write (c-include "file.h") and the API defined in "file.h" is accessible from Lisp. I can't think of a simpler way.
Even without cl-autowrap, FFI using https://cffi.common-lisp.dev/ seems simple enough.
-
An Idea for Piggybacking Python (language) ecosystem
I think the closest is cl-autowrap. I can imagine a higher level wrapper around it by which it can translate the python header file into the CL counterpart, although I'm not sure how much work the translation might entail. Also, because python and lisp semantics can differ considerably, the generated code might be trying to do weird things - again an issue of translation.
-
Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software
Common lisp has a "pretty OK" story for calling C code whenever some speed is needed [0,1]. In my opinion, they suffer from some of the documentation/quick start problems that common lisp has, but they're otherwise usable.
Some of Naughty Dog's late 90's/early 2000's games (Jak and Daxter, Jak II) were written in a lisp called GOAL, Game Oriented Assembly Lisp [2]
[0] https://github.com/rpav/cl-autowrap
-
Common Lisp language extensions wish list?
The closest thing to what you request, that I'm aware of, is cl-autowrap (to use C code from Lisp) but it is not standard in any way. CFFI is the de facto standard for using C from Lisp across different implementations.
-
I have bolted together ECL and the Irrlicht game library
:claw tracks back to 2017 as a fork of cl-autowrap with cl-autowrap/pull/83 feature.
-
Common Lisp
If you're interested in FFI, then yeah CFFI is the standard. The other comments addressed speed, I also wanted to point out https://github.com/rpav/cl-autowrap which is built on top of CFFI and can help get a wrapper up and running faster. After using autowrap's c-include you can then use CFFI basically like normal or some useful autowrap/plus-c's helper functions -- e.g. in one project, I have an SDL_Event (https://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL_Event) and to access event.key.keysym.scancode I have a helper function that's just (plus-c:c-ref event sdl2-ffi:sdl-event :key :keysym :scancode). Last year I wanted to try out using FMOD, and even though it's closed source and has a (to me) "interesting" API things worked easily: https://gist.github.com/Jach/dc2ec7b9402d0ec5836a935384cacdc... More work would be needed to make a nice wrapper, type things more fully, etc. but depending on the C library you might find someone's already done that (or made a start) and made it available from quicklisp.
-
[Common Lisp] Best Libraries for Interfacing with UNIX-like Operating Systems?
In recent years there has also been cl-autowrap; caveats -
-
Alternative to ECL?
There is the cl-autowrap that can generate lisp packages from C header filesc- I am unsure if it sticks to ANSI C or goes beyond. It inturn depends on c2ffi for the first time around.
What are some alternatives?
peds - Type safe persistent/immutable data structures for Go
c2ffi - Clang-based FFI wrapper generator
MS-DOS - The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0, for reference purposes
cffi - The Common Foreign Function Interface
systemshock - Shockolate - A minimalist and cross platform System Shock source port.
chibi-scheme - Official chibi-scheme repository
dhall - Maintainable configuration files
cl-rashell - Resilient replicant Shell Programming Library for Common Lisp
book - The Rust Programming Language
mal - mal - Make a Lisp
fun-problems
claw - Common Lisp autowrapping facility for C and C++ libraries