From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F59BBAF for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:06:20 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Al4FAMBSEUnUnw4UZmdsb2JhbACCRpFTDQsICBIDuQ6DUw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,551,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="19604122" Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net ([212.159.14.20]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 05 Nov 2008 17:06:20 +0100 Received: from [87.114.2.42] (helo=leper.local) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Kxktf-0002oj-7e for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:06:19 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you? Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:08:21 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200810200919.41561.ober.14@osu.edu> <200811051639.23844.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200811051055.25456.ober.14@osu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200811051055.25456.ober.14@osu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811051708.21288.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 96c8f1a60c394f0ce5f38ad9079b2b5c X-Spam: no; 0.00; renderer:01 higher-level:01 triangles:01 run-time:01 ocaml:01 sockets:01 ffi:01 ocaml:01 high-level:01 smoke:98 smoke:98 loosest:98 frog:98 wrote:01 stack:01 On Wednesday 05 November 2008 15:55:24 Kuba Ober wrote: > Would it be useful, then, to have Smoke have a built-in renderer for > embedded/non-accelerated platforms? It should still be faster than Mesa, > since you can work with higher-level objects that can perhaps be drawn > faster with object-specific rendering functions, instead of having > to tesselate everything and then just work on triangles? > > I'm pretty sure that such built-in rendering would perform better and > have smaller footprint for non-accelerated platforms than going through > the whole OpenGL stack. > > What do you think? Smoke already runs fine using Mesa and Mesa is still seeing huge performance improvements, e.g. using run-time generated code via LLVM. If you desperately needed Smoke on an embedded platform, I would just port it to OpenGL ES instead of reinventing the wheel. > Then, there's still a whole lot of work in getting OCaml interoperate > with native platform (think OLE, browser plugins, yada yada). I would opt for the loosest available binding, e.g. sending XML over sockets, and avoid native code FFI in OCaml for anything high-level at all costs. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e