Point distance program written without a framework
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
I have been developing a cross-platform game based on open C libraries (mainly glfw) with a direct focus on Windows development. The beginning of my programming career taught me familiarity in Objective-C, however I've been using pure C for the past few years in embedded applications.
Now that I'm trying to return to proper desktop program development, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to transfer my Objective-C skills to Windows in order to tidy up my C code. My current way of programming is creating a struct for data that I need and then creating functions around those structs: struct Point {int x, int y};
and then float Point_calculateDistance(struct Point *obj1, struct Point *obj2)
. This approach to me seemed very redundant and too object-oriented to write all in C. It would make more sense to me to write an Objective-C class to do this where everything can be more encapsulated.
I prefer not to use any framework for my code to increase the portability. I'm currently using VS Code and MSYS2 (mingw64) with GCC 8.3.0. I threw together a working example that demonstrates how I attempt to build a simple class. Does my code look reasonable? Am I performing any bad habits (within reason considering that I'm not using a framework)? Does this currently leak memory? Let me know what you think.
#include <objc/objc.h>
#include <objc/runtime.h>
#include <objc/Object.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
@interface Point : Object {
float x;
float y;
}
@property float x;
@property float y;
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval;
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other;
@end
@implementation Point
@synthesize x;
@synthesize y;
+(id)alloc {
id obj = malloc(class_getInstanceSize(self));
object_setClass(obj, self);
return obj;
}
-(void)dealloc {
free(self);
}
-(id)init {
x = 0.0;
y = 0.0;
return self;
}
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval {
x = xval;
y = yval;
return self;
}
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other {
return sqrt((x - other.x) * (x - other.x) + (y - other.y) * (y - other.y));
}
@end
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
Point *point1 = [[Point alloc] init];
Point *point2 = [[Point alloc] initWithX: 1.5 AndY: 1.5];
printf("Distance is %f.n", [point1 calculateDistance: point2]);
[point1 dealloc];
[point2 dealloc];
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
objective-c windows
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I have been developing a cross-platform game based on open C libraries (mainly glfw) with a direct focus on Windows development. The beginning of my programming career taught me familiarity in Objective-C, however I've been using pure C for the past few years in embedded applications.
Now that I'm trying to return to proper desktop program development, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to transfer my Objective-C skills to Windows in order to tidy up my C code. My current way of programming is creating a struct for data that I need and then creating functions around those structs: struct Point {int x, int y};
and then float Point_calculateDistance(struct Point *obj1, struct Point *obj2)
. This approach to me seemed very redundant and too object-oriented to write all in C. It would make more sense to me to write an Objective-C class to do this where everything can be more encapsulated.
I prefer not to use any framework for my code to increase the portability. I'm currently using VS Code and MSYS2 (mingw64) with GCC 8.3.0. I threw together a working example that demonstrates how I attempt to build a simple class. Does my code look reasonable? Am I performing any bad habits (within reason considering that I'm not using a framework)? Does this currently leak memory? Let me know what you think.
#include <objc/objc.h>
#include <objc/runtime.h>
#include <objc/Object.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
@interface Point : Object {
float x;
float y;
}
@property float x;
@property float y;
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval;
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other;
@end
@implementation Point
@synthesize x;
@synthesize y;
+(id)alloc {
id obj = malloc(class_getInstanceSize(self));
object_setClass(obj, self);
return obj;
}
-(void)dealloc {
free(self);
}
-(id)init {
x = 0.0;
y = 0.0;
return self;
}
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval {
x = xval;
y = yval;
return self;
}
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other {
return sqrt((x - other.x) * (x - other.x) + (y - other.y) * (y - other.y));
}
@end
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
Point *point1 = [[Point alloc] init];
Point *point2 = [[Point alloc] initWithX: 1.5 AndY: 1.5];
printf("Distance is %f.n", [point1 calculateDistance: point2]);
[point1 dealloc];
[point2 dealloc];
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
objective-c windows
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
where is the [super init]?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:19
$begingroup$
@E.Coms The base classObject
only has the variableisa
and the methodsclass
andisEqual:
so calling[super init]
causes a seg. fault.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:29
$begingroup$
I use Xcode and not familiar with Object. I use NSObject and found it runs well at least in grammar. Without super. it just looks missing Root Object.
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:31
$begingroup$
@E.Coms NSObject is a piece of Foundation.h which is written by Apple. Finding a class that does something similar would require writing my own or using a framework like GNUStep, both of which are overkill for my uses.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:34
$begingroup$
how about subclass of Point, will you still misssuper
?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:40
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I have been developing a cross-platform game based on open C libraries (mainly glfw) with a direct focus on Windows development. The beginning of my programming career taught me familiarity in Objective-C, however I've been using pure C for the past few years in embedded applications.
Now that I'm trying to return to proper desktop program development, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to transfer my Objective-C skills to Windows in order to tidy up my C code. My current way of programming is creating a struct for data that I need and then creating functions around those structs: struct Point {int x, int y};
and then float Point_calculateDistance(struct Point *obj1, struct Point *obj2)
. This approach to me seemed very redundant and too object-oriented to write all in C. It would make more sense to me to write an Objective-C class to do this where everything can be more encapsulated.
I prefer not to use any framework for my code to increase the portability. I'm currently using VS Code and MSYS2 (mingw64) with GCC 8.3.0. I threw together a working example that demonstrates how I attempt to build a simple class. Does my code look reasonable? Am I performing any bad habits (within reason considering that I'm not using a framework)? Does this currently leak memory? Let me know what you think.
#include <objc/objc.h>
#include <objc/runtime.h>
#include <objc/Object.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
@interface Point : Object {
float x;
float y;
}
@property float x;
@property float y;
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval;
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other;
@end
@implementation Point
@synthesize x;
@synthesize y;
+(id)alloc {
id obj = malloc(class_getInstanceSize(self));
object_setClass(obj, self);
return obj;
}
-(void)dealloc {
free(self);
}
-(id)init {
x = 0.0;
y = 0.0;
return self;
}
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval {
x = xval;
y = yval;
return self;
}
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other {
return sqrt((x - other.x) * (x - other.x) + (y - other.y) * (y - other.y));
}
@end
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
Point *point1 = [[Point alloc] init];
Point *point2 = [[Point alloc] initWithX: 1.5 AndY: 1.5];
printf("Distance is %f.n", [point1 calculateDistance: point2]);
[point1 dealloc];
[point2 dealloc];
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
objective-c windows
$endgroup$
I have been developing a cross-platform game based on open C libraries (mainly glfw) with a direct focus on Windows development. The beginning of my programming career taught me familiarity in Objective-C, however I've been using pure C for the past few years in embedded applications.
Now that I'm trying to return to proper desktop program development, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to transfer my Objective-C skills to Windows in order to tidy up my C code. My current way of programming is creating a struct for data that I need and then creating functions around those structs: struct Point {int x, int y};
and then float Point_calculateDistance(struct Point *obj1, struct Point *obj2)
. This approach to me seemed very redundant and too object-oriented to write all in C. It would make more sense to me to write an Objective-C class to do this where everything can be more encapsulated.
I prefer not to use any framework for my code to increase the portability. I'm currently using VS Code and MSYS2 (mingw64) with GCC 8.3.0. I threw together a working example that demonstrates how I attempt to build a simple class. Does my code look reasonable? Am I performing any bad habits (within reason considering that I'm not using a framework)? Does this currently leak memory? Let me know what you think.
#include <objc/objc.h>
#include <objc/runtime.h>
#include <objc/Object.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
@interface Point : Object {
float x;
float y;
}
@property float x;
@property float y;
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval;
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other;
@end
@implementation Point
@synthesize x;
@synthesize y;
+(id)alloc {
id obj = malloc(class_getInstanceSize(self));
object_setClass(obj, self);
return obj;
}
-(void)dealloc {
free(self);
}
-(id)init {
x = 0.0;
y = 0.0;
return self;
}
-(id)initWithX: (float)xval AndY: (float)yval {
x = xval;
y = yval;
return self;
}
-(float)calculateDistance: (Point *)other {
return sqrt((x - other.x) * (x - other.x) + (y - other.y) * (y - other.y));
}
@end
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
Point *point1 = [[Point alloc] init];
Point *point2 = [[Point alloc] initWithX: 1.5 AndY: 1.5];
printf("Distance is %f.n", [point1 calculateDistance: point2]);
[point1 dealloc];
[point2 dealloc];
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
objective-c windows
objective-c windows
edited Apr 1 at 0:25
Jamal♦
30.6k11121227
30.6k11121227
asked Mar 31 at 23:30
dylanweberdylanweber
209110
209110
$begingroup$
where is the [super init]?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:19
$begingroup$
@E.Coms The base classObject
only has the variableisa
and the methodsclass
andisEqual:
so calling[super init]
causes a seg. fault.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:29
$begingroup$
I use Xcode and not familiar with Object. I use NSObject and found it runs well at least in grammar. Without super. it just looks missing Root Object.
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:31
$begingroup$
@E.Coms NSObject is a piece of Foundation.h which is written by Apple. Finding a class that does something similar would require writing my own or using a framework like GNUStep, both of which are overkill for my uses.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:34
$begingroup$
how about subclass of Point, will you still misssuper
?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:40
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
where is the [super init]?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:19
$begingroup$
@E.Coms The base classObject
only has the variableisa
and the methodsclass
andisEqual:
so calling[super init]
causes a seg. fault.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:29
$begingroup$
I use Xcode and not familiar with Object. I use NSObject and found it runs well at least in grammar. Without super. it just looks missing Root Object.
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:31
$begingroup$
@E.Coms NSObject is a piece of Foundation.h which is written by Apple. Finding a class that does something similar would require writing my own or using a framework like GNUStep, both of which are overkill for my uses.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:34
$begingroup$
how about subclass of Point, will you still misssuper
?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:40
$begingroup$
where is the [super init]?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:19
$begingroup$
where is the [super init]?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:19
$begingroup$
@E.Coms The base class
Object
only has the variable isa
and the methods class
and isEqual:
so calling [super init]
causes a seg. fault.$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:29
$begingroup$
@E.Coms The base class
Object
only has the variable isa
and the methods class
and isEqual:
so calling [super init]
causes a seg. fault.$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:29
$begingroup$
I use Xcode and not familiar with Object. I use NSObject and found it runs well at least in grammar. Without super. it just looks missing Root Object.
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:31
$begingroup$
I use Xcode and not familiar with Object. I use NSObject and found it runs well at least in grammar. Without super. it just looks missing Root Object.
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:31
$begingroup$
@E.Coms NSObject is a piece of Foundation.h which is written by Apple. Finding a class that does something similar would require writing my own or using a framework like GNUStep, both of which are overkill for my uses.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:34
$begingroup$
@E.Coms NSObject is a piece of Foundation.h which is written by Apple. Finding a class that does something similar would require writing my own or using a framework like GNUStep, both of which are overkill for my uses.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:34
$begingroup$
how about subclass of Point, will you still miss
super
?$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:40
$begingroup$
how about subclass of Point, will you still miss
super
?$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:40
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's an interesting idea to write Windows code in Objective-C. If you were using NeXTStep frameworks (or GNUStep) it would make a little more sense. I don't understand your desire to avoid frameworks, which tend to be force multipliers saving you time and effort. (And of course, you are using OpenGL and GLFW, so this seems like an arbitrary choice.) Regardless, given those constraints, here are my thoughts.
Language
In my opinion Objective-C is the wrong choice for this particular project. I say that as someone who makes a living programming largely in Objective-C. The problem, as I see it, is that you lose 2 important things that you would get from other languages:
- The ability to use objects or
structs
for doing your work and passing them directly to OpenGL/GLFW. - The ability to use operator overloading.
OpenGL expects to receive geometry as an array of vertex attributes (or several different arrays – one for each attribute). That's going to be impossible using the class as you've written it. Each Objective-C object is its own entity on the heap. If you have an array of them, it's really just an array of pointers to the objects, which may or may not be contiguous in memory. You won't be able to just call glVertexAttribPointer()
or other similar functions and pass a pointer to the array since the array will just be an array of other pointers. In C you'd have an array of Point
struct
s either on the stack or the heap and could just pass the address of the first element to the above function. Likewise with something like a C++ std::vector<Point>
you'd be able to pass the address of the first element (assuming Point
had no v-table). In addition to making it harder to send the data to the GPU, it also makes processing the data on the CPU slower because you lose cache coherency when the data isn't contiguous.
You'll also want to do math on your Point
objects. While you can write methods on your Objective-C class to add, subtract, etc., it's not as natural as using a language that allows you to overload operators. In particular, C++ and Swift both allow this and it makes writing graphics code feel much more natural.
Class
This class is rather thin. It doesn't do very much that's useful. What it does do, it appears to do correctly. It might be useful to swap the sqrt()
call with a call to hypot(x,y)
instead.
At a minimum, if you're doing 2D graphics, you'll probably want to add the following methods:
- (void)add:(Point*)p;
- (void)subtract:(Point*)p;
- (float)dotProduct:(Point*)p;
- (void)normalize;
- (void)multiplyScalar:(float)s;
- (void)multiplyVector:(Point*)p;
- (void)divideScalar:(float)s;
- (void)divideVector:(Point*)p;
And eventually, you'll probably want a Matrix
class for things like scaling and rotation operations.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using thePoint
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make aPoint_3D
struct with afloat x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f216611%2fpoint-distance-program-written-without-a-framework%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's an interesting idea to write Windows code in Objective-C. If you were using NeXTStep frameworks (or GNUStep) it would make a little more sense. I don't understand your desire to avoid frameworks, which tend to be force multipliers saving you time and effort. (And of course, you are using OpenGL and GLFW, so this seems like an arbitrary choice.) Regardless, given those constraints, here are my thoughts.
Language
In my opinion Objective-C is the wrong choice for this particular project. I say that as someone who makes a living programming largely in Objective-C. The problem, as I see it, is that you lose 2 important things that you would get from other languages:
- The ability to use objects or
structs
for doing your work and passing them directly to OpenGL/GLFW. - The ability to use operator overloading.
OpenGL expects to receive geometry as an array of vertex attributes (or several different arrays – one for each attribute). That's going to be impossible using the class as you've written it. Each Objective-C object is its own entity on the heap. If you have an array of them, it's really just an array of pointers to the objects, which may or may not be contiguous in memory. You won't be able to just call glVertexAttribPointer()
or other similar functions and pass a pointer to the array since the array will just be an array of other pointers. In C you'd have an array of Point
struct
s either on the stack or the heap and could just pass the address of the first element to the above function. Likewise with something like a C++ std::vector<Point>
you'd be able to pass the address of the first element (assuming Point
had no v-table). In addition to making it harder to send the data to the GPU, it also makes processing the data on the CPU slower because you lose cache coherency when the data isn't contiguous.
You'll also want to do math on your Point
objects. While you can write methods on your Objective-C class to add, subtract, etc., it's not as natural as using a language that allows you to overload operators. In particular, C++ and Swift both allow this and it makes writing graphics code feel much more natural.
Class
This class is rather thin. It doesn't do very much that's useful. What it does do, it appears to do correctly. It might be useful to swap the sqrt()
call with a call to hypot(x,y)
instead.
At a minimum, if you're doing 2D graphics, you'll probably want to add the following methods:
- (void)add:(Point*)p;
- (void)subtract:(Point*)p;
- (float)dotProduct:(Point*)p;
- (void)normalize;
- (void)multiplyScalar:(float)s;
- (void)multiplyVector:(Point*)p;
- (void)divideScalar:(float)s;
- (void)divideVector:(Point*)p;
And eventually, you'll probably want a Matrix
class for things like scaling and rotation operations.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using thePoint
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make aPoint_3D
struct with afloat x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's an interesting idea to write Windows code in Objective-C. If you were using NeXTStep frameworks (or GNUStep) it would make a little more sense. I don't understand your desire to avoid frameworks, which tend to be force multipliers saving you time and effort. (And of course, you are using OpenGL and GLFW, so this seems like an arbitrary choice.) Regardless, given those constraints, here are my thoughts.
Language
In my opinion Objective-C is the wrong choice for this particular project. I say that as someone who makes a living programming largely in Objective-C. The problem, as I see it, is that you lose 2 important things that you would get from other languages:
- The ability to use objects or
structs
for doing your work and passing them directly to OpenGL/GLFW. - The ability to use operator overloading.
OpenGL expects to receive geometry as an array of vertex attributes (or several different arrays – one for each attribute). That's going to be impossible using the class as you've written it. Each Objective-C object is its own entity on the heap. If you have an array of them, it's really just an array of pointers to the objects, which may or may not be contiguous in memory. You won't be able to just call glVertexAttribPointer()
or other similar functions and pass a pointer to the array since the array will just be an array of other pointers. In C you'd have an array of Point
struct
s either on the stack or the heap and could just pass the address of the first element to the above function. Likewise with something like a C++ std::vector<Point>
you'd be able to pass the address of the first element (assuming Point
had no v-table). In addition to making it harder to send the data to the GPU, it also makes processing the data on the CPU slower because you lose cache coherency when the data isn't contiguous.
You'll also want to do math on your Point
objects. While you can write methods on your Objective-C class to add, subtract, etc., it's not as natural as using a language that allows you to overload operators. In particular, C++ and Swift both allow this and it makes writing graphics code feel much more natural.
Class
This class is rather thin. It doesn't do very much that's useful. What it does do, it appears to do correctly. It might be useful to swap the sqrt()
call with a call to hypot(x,y)
instead.
At a minimum, if you're doing 2D graphics, you'll probably want to add the following methods:
- (void)add:(Point*)p;
- (void)subtract:(Point*)p;
- (float)dotProduct:(Point*)p;
- (void)normalize;
- (void)multiplyScalar:(float)s;
- (void)multiplyVector:(Point*)p;
- (void)divideScalar:(float)s;
- (void)divideVector:(Point*)p;
And eventually, you'll probably want a Matrix
class for things like scaling and rotation operations.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using thePoint
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make aPoint_3D
struct with afloat x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's an interesting idea to write Windows code in Objective-C. If you were using NeXTStep frameworks (or GNUStep) it would make a little more sense. I don't understand your desire to avoid frameworks, which tend to be force multipliers saving you time and effort. (And of course, you are using OpenGL and GLFW, so this seems like an arbitrary choice.) Regardless, given those constraints, here are my thoughts.
Language
In my opinion Objective-C is the wrong choice for this particular project. I say that as someone who makes a living programming largely in Objective-C. The problem, as I see it, is that you lose 2 important things that you would get from other languages:
- The ability to use objects or
structs
for doing your work and passing them directly to OpenGL/GLFW. - The ability to use operator overloading.
OpenGL expects to receive geometry as an array of vertex attributes (or several different arrays – one for each attribute). That's going to be impossible using the class as you've written it. Each Objective-C object is its own entity on the heap. If you have an array of them, it's really just an array of pointers to the objects, which may or may not be contiguous in memory. You won't be able to just call glVertexAttribPointer()
or other similar functions and pass a pointer to the array since the array will just be an array of other pointers. In C you'd have an array of Point
struct
s either on the stack or the heap and could just pass the address of the first element to the above function. Likewise with something like a C++ std::vector<Point>
you'd be able to pass the address of the first element (assuming Point
had no v-table). In addition to making it harder to send the data to the GPU, it also makes processing the data on the CPU slower because you lose cache coherency when the data isn't contiguous.
You'll also want to do math on your Point
objects. While you can write methods on your Objective-C class to add, subtract, etc., it's not as natural as using a language that allows you to overload operators. In particular, C++ and Swift both allow this and it makes writing graphics code feel much more natural.
Class
This class is rather thin. It doesn't do very much that's useful. What it does do, it appears to do correctly. It might be useful to swap the sqrt()
call with a call to hypot(x,y)
instead.
At a minimum, if you're doing 2D graphics, you'll probably want to add the following methods:
- (void)add:(Point*)p;
- (void)subtract:(Point*)p;
- (float)dotProduct:(Point*)p;
- (void)normalize;
- (void)multiplyScalar:(float)s;
- (void)multiplyVector:(Point*)p;
- (void)divideScalar:(float)s;
- (void)divideVector:(Point*)p;
And eventually, you'll probably want a Matrix
class for things like scaling and rotation operations.
$endgroup$
It's an interesting idea to write Windows code in Objective-C. If you were using NeXTStep frameworks (or GNUStep) it would make a little more sense. I don't understand your desire to avoid frameworks, which tend to be force multipliers saving you time and effort. (And of course, you are using OpenGL and GLFW, so this seems like an arbitrary choice.) Regardless, given those constraints, here are my thoughts.
Language
In my opinion Objective-C is the wrong choice for this particular project. I say that as someone who makes a living programming largely in Objective-C. The problem, as I see it, is that you lose 2 important things that you would get from other languages:
- The ability to use objects or
structs
for doing your work and passing them directly to OpenGL/GLFW. - The ability to use operator overloading.
OpenGL expects to receive geometry as an array of vertex attributes (or several different arrays – one for each attribute). That's going to be impossible using the class as you've written it. Each Objective-C object is its own entity on the heap. If you have an array of them, it's really just an array of pointers to the objects, which may or may not be contiguous in memory. You won't be able to just call glVertexAttribPointer()
or other similar functions and pass a pointer to the array since the array will just be an array of other pointers. In C you'd have an array of Point
struct
s either on the stack or the heap and could just pass the address of the first element to the above function. Likewise with something like a C++ std::vector<Point>
you'd be able to pass the address of the first element (assuming Point
had no v-table). In addition to making it harder to send the data to the GPU, it also makes processing the data on the CPU slower because you lose cache coherency when the data isn't contiguous.
You'll also want to do math on your Point
objects. While you can write methods on your Objective-C class to add, subtract, etc., it's not as natural as using a language that allows you to overload operators. In particular, C++ and Swift both allow this and it makes writing graphics code feel much more natural.
Class
This class is rather thin. It doesn't do very much that's useful. What it does do, it appears to do correctly. It might be useful to swap the sqrt()
call with a call to hypot(x,y)
instead.
At a minimum, if you're doing 2D graphics, you'll probably want to add the following methods:
- (void)add:(Point*)p;
- (void)subtract:(Point*)p;
- (float)dotProduct:(Point*)p;
- (void)normalize;
- (void)multiplyScalar:(float)s;
- (void)multiplyVector:(Point*)p;
- (void)divideScalar:(float)s;
- (void)divideVector:(Point*)p;
And eventually, you'll probably want a Matrix
class for things like scaling and rotation operations.
answered Apr 1 at 0:49
user1118321user1118321
11k11145
11k11145
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using thePoint
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make aPoint_3D
struct with afloat x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using thePoint
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make aPoint_3D
struct with afloat x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using the
Point
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make a Point_3D
struct with a float x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
$begingroup$
Thank you for the comments, but perhaps I didn't make my intentions completely clear. I was really just using the
Point
example to demonstrate a functioning, compiling class more than something I would use to interact directly with OpenGL. If I were storing vertices, I would probably make a Point_3D
struct with a float x, y, z
and then perhaps implement it in an array as an instance variable of a larger object class (along with things like textures and shaders).$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 1:02
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f216611%2fpoint-distance-program-written-without-a-framework%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
where is the [super init]?
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:19
$begingroup$
@E.Coms The base class
Object
only has the variableisa
and the methodsclass
andisEqual:
so calling[super init]
causes a seg. fault.$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:29
$begingroup$
I use Xcode and not familiar with Object. I use NSObject and found it runs well at least in grammar. Without super. it just looks missing Root Object.
$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:31
$begingroup$
@E.Coms NSObject is a piece of Foundation.h which is written by Apple. Finding a class that does something similar would require writing my own or using a framework like GNUStep, both of which are overkill for my uses.
$endgroup$
– dylanweber
Apr 1 at 0:34
$begingroup$
how about subclass of Point, will you still miss
super
?$endgroup$
– E.Coms
Apr 1 at 0:40