-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refresh of NuGet packet? #96
Comments
+1 nuget version is missing many fixes |
We use Artemis projects (i.e. source code) because we tinker with it a lot. The code base is very small and is built without any dancing or hacks. I don't justify the staleness of the nuget package - I just wanted to point out that it's probably not of real value at all) |
sad to see how dead this project is now :( |
I wouldn't say it is dead, it has some quirks but it is somewhat complete. There isn't enough research about Entity Systems to advance this. |
I agree with @thelinuxlich and @Maximusya. This project isn't dead, it is stable. I've had very few problems with the framework after using it almost every day for 2 years. The only thing I could see would be to look into improving the performance, but I am no C# performance expert. Adam Martin is writing some new articles on Entity Systems in the coming months. Here is a link to his Patreon page (https://www.patreon.com/tmachine?ty=h). |
Maybe we could create a new version adopting everything from latest C# just for syntactic bliss? :) |
What do you mean? Update it to C# 4.5 or 5? I think it would be good to keep it compatible with Unity and C# 3.5. |
Okie dokie |
I am still up to change it of course if people think there is some advantage! I am not using it with Unity anyways, so I don't know if what I suggest would be bad. |
Please do not take following as rule, but i had some ideas we might think of: |
I do not agree with not updating nuget, it is most comfortable to use it in nuget if you want to make some quick tests. The easyness in handling the framework is not equal to implement source. At least when we talk about this project is finished, why not releasing a final nuget package then? |
Those changes seem reasonable. The 64 count limit has been fixed and merged in I believe. I think SortedDictionary is slower than the Bag system. Anyone know if this is true? What is MonoGame? |
The limit is 64 now, but with dictionary you whould not have any limit in count but memory. Bag is similar to array speed with some extras. We use it already for time critical parts and it would not make the butter no parsnips. MonoGame (http://www.monogame.net/) is the multi-platfom implementation of XNA, but not with the complete set of features due to missing support on linux/mac/android for XAudio2 and some other DX related stuff. MS itself adviced developers to move to monogame or unity. I tried to move to monogame but ended with the insight that monogame does not meet my needs and vision of quality. So i start from scratch in UAP now with SharpDX. |
Although the example(StarWarrior) is written with XNA, Artemis itself isn't tied to it. |
Int32, Int64, BigInteger are for bitset-operations (checking Aspect (TypeBits) and belonging to a particular System (SystemBits)) - how would you suggest to replace this with a Dictionary? As for Bag vs *Dictionary - it could possibly be abstracted (or decorated) and presented to end developer as an option (speed vs memory requirements) |
I suggest to use an identifier like the name of a class and get the System with it out of for e.g. a Well i guess a *Dictionary to host Systems in a 100 Systems Project is definitely not the bottleneck... And please bear in mind, with .NET Core we have a totally new base, so old rules of performace have to be retested anyway. |
Will you offer a new NuGet packet?
In current 1.3.1 i am not able to add a component without error of null object.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: