Security updates, though?
I mean, you aren't wrong. But there were other advantages to dynamic linking.
There is obviously a trade off here, but categorically speaking, new releases introduce new bugs and security exploits too.
Readit Newsjessermeyer commented on Swift Achieved Dynamic Linking Where Rust Couldn't (2019) faultlore.com/blah/swift-... · Posted by u/alin23
jessermeyer commented on Porting 58k lines of D and C++ to Jai yet-another-blog.com/port... · Posted by u/Growtika
Sorry, I think we're stuck in a loop.
> we found that pushing gameplay systems beyond the prototype stage would require more and more effort
I understand that you're saying that some systems exist that can't work. I'm trying to understand what those systems would look like, and how the user would see it as being different. Do you have an example of the system/mechanic that can't work?
Not at a high level that is easy to express in a HN post, sorry. It's one of those "the devil is in the details and there are a lot of details".
jessermeyer commented on Data-Oriented Programming in Python moderndescartes.com/essay... · Posted by u/brilee
I'm curious how you would do data oriented programming in a language with no type system and no control over memory layout. And I guess the answer is "you can't, but JITs might exist someday that do it for you"
But you can't wave your hands around and say compiler optimizations will fix performance problems - they can, but they're not magic, and the arrow in the proverbial knee for optimization passes are language semantics that make them impossible to realize (forcing the authors to either abandon the passes, or rely on things like dynamic deoptimization which is not free).
Those are basically contradiction of terms. Orienting the program structure around the data necessarily requires control over memory layout and how it is interpretted.
jessermeyer commented on Porting 58k lines of D and C++ to Jai yet-another-blog.com/port... · Posted by u/Growtika
> They are very difficult to use if the game play semantics are complicated and require lots of interaction with world state or world geometry.
Could you give an example? I’m trying to understand what the limits look like. It appears to be trivial to you, but for someone outside of game design, I can’t imagine what those might be.
We almost never hit technical limits in the renderer, streaming systems, etc. Instead, we found that pushing gameplay systems beyond the prototype stage would require more and more effort, as we'd encounter deep engine bugs, or the tooling simply did not cater to our use case.
We ended up implementing more and more tooling outside the engine, and there comes a point where UE4 became a IO/Rendering system. We'd've been happier if the engine were modular in design from the get-go.
jessermeyer commented on Porting 58k lines of D and C++ to Jai yet-another-blog.com/port... · Posted by u/Growtika
Could you give an examples of a game that used a custom game engines that couldn’t achieve what they wanted in Unreal or Unity?
Edit: The only style I would think would be infinite/strange geometry, like Manifold garden (great game!). But, it’s Unity.
I've worked on several. You haven't heard of them because none of them shipped due to issues with commercial engines (in particular Unreal Engine 4).
They are very difficult to use if the game play semantics are complicated and require lots of interaction with world state or world geometry. If you're making a common FPS, they are great.
How do you get around the performance hit of having to buffer from disk/network -> CPU -> RAM -> GPU and back or whatever?
There is always a minimum cost of moving data from one place to another. If you're computing on the GPU, the data must arrive there. The problem is that PCIE bandwidth is often a bottleneck, and so if you can upload compressed data then you essentially get a free multiplier of bandwidth based on the compression ratio. If the decompression time is faster than having sent the full uncompressed dataset, then you win.
But yeah, direct IO to the GPU would be great but that's not feasible right now.
Deleted Comment
The answer is: A lot. When looking at fusion processes that create carbon, if the strength of the electric force (quantifiable as the fine structure constant) were just 4% different, our universe would never have produced enough carbon to create life as we know it. The limit is even tighter for the strong nuclear force - less than one percent. If you pick arbitrary constants, you'd very likely just end up in a universe that contains only protons and no higher elements. And it gets even weirder when you start looking at gravity, because most universes should actually have collapsed again long ago or expanded so fast that no elements could form. Some of these fine tuning problems can even be looked at in the absence of intelligent life, because even for a liveable universe they seem ridiculously fine tuned to support what we actually see in the sky.
I carefully chose my word "function" instead of "existence".
Give me two different universes where cognition exists but where the fundamental constants differ. Would you expect the ability to perform syllogism would be fundamentally biased to reflect the constants which brought about their existence?
There could also be a bias here.
Maybe cognition that develops in a cosmos and is able to reason about cosmoi is more likely to develop models of cosmoi that make their/its own cosmos very typical.
I don't know how much bias the fine structure constant has on the function of cognition, but I think we can all agree that constats incompatible with higher level biological function like cognition would never produce arguments in favor of their typicality.
If you sell software that requires your clients to upgrade their system-wide security stack, so they might not. If it is statically linked, no need for them to.