From: Bart Braem <bart.braem@...>
Date: 2006-12-08T18:45:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 3D Math libraries?

Paul Lutus wrote:

> But I ask you to consider this. From a user's perspective, the total
> runtime is the total of the preparation time plus the time spent using the
> library. I suspect that the total time for making this library work for
> you will soon cross over a threshold beyond which it would have been
> quicker and easier to write, test and use your own 3D vector routines,
> composed in plain Ruby.
> 
> Another advantage to writing your own code -- oops, I mean your
> own library -- is that the resulting library will be understood by you,
> it will be composed in the very readable and transparent syntax for which
> Ruby is justly famous, and you will be able to change it very quickly and
> easily to meet new requirements.
> 
> In exchange, it will not be nearly as fast as a compiled, native-code
> library would have been, if the library had ever been successfully
> compiled and run.
> 

I understand your arguments but I'm looking at this from different
perspectives.

As a programmer I do not mind fixing this to learn more about Ruby libraries
and have a better understanding on how to write and use them. I got this
one fixed (almost, see my most recent post) so I don't mind. Of course when
it would not have worked out soon enough I would have left it.

Another argument pro is that this library is tested. When writing this
myself I am bound to make errors. Here there are a number of tests so
that's less probable.

A last and most important argument is that I need the performance. I am
going to write large programs where lots of 3D calculations are necessary.
Then I need the C performance, but preferably hidden away in a nice Ruby
library.

(So my decision is to use the library, as I have it working.)

Regards,
Bart