Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 21, 2024 at 16:37 vote accept Patryk Czachurski
Oct 24, 2015 at 12:42 vote accept Patryk Czachurski
May 21, 2024 at 16:37
Oct 24, 2015 at 12:42 vote accept Patryk Czachurski
Oct 24, 2015 at 12:42
Jul 20, 2013 at 16:57 vote accept Patryk Czachurski
May 10, 2015 at 18:55
Jul 6, 2013 at 21:09 comment added Sean Middleditch My point there was that AI was a place where your approach is better, but for other components it is not necessarily so.
Jul 6, 2013 at 20:54 comment added Patryk Czachurski Okay, now I've got your point about this one. Anyway I think that even if adding/removing were a bit more expensive it happens so ocassionaly that it is still worth greatly simplifying the process of accessing the components, which happens in real-time. So, the overhead of "changing" is negliglible. About your AI example, isn't it still worth these few systems that anyway need data from multiple components?
Jul 6, 2013 at 20:43 comment added Sean Middleditch And I said you don't necessarily want to deal with the reification. "Making a new entity" could potentially mean breaking all existing handles to the entity, depending on how your handle system works. Your call if they're cheap enough or not. I found it to just be a pain in the butt to have to deal with.
Jul 6, 2013 at 20:38 comment added Patryk Czachurski I said: we cannot change entity's signature, and I meant that we cannot directly modify it in-place, but still we can just obtain existing assemblage to a local copy, make changes to it, and upload again as a new entity - and these operations are pretty cheap, as I have shown in the question. Once again - there is only ONE "bucket" class. "Assemblages"/"Signatures"/"let's name it however we want" can be created dynamically at runtime as in a standard approach, I would even go as far as thinking of an entity as a "signature".
Jul 6, 2013 at 20:27 history answered Sean Middleditch CC BY-SA 3.0