[Haskell-cafe] [reactive] A pong and integrate

[Peter Verswyvelen]

What papers did you read?

When I read most of the Yampa papers, most of the "design patterns"
became obvious for AFRP (arrow-based FRP) style of programming. That
doesn't mean I could apply the design patterns immediately; I
understood them but writing a game in it was difficult since I also
was too used to the imperative approach. Note that in AFRP the design
patterns are actually functions and combinators itself (dpSwitch and
the like), and no "fuzzy descriptions" like in imperative programming.

Regarding user interfaces, FRUIT (also AFRP based) is also nice IMO.

But above systems suffer from scalability and performance (and the
annoying fact that a random number generator is not embedded in the
framework) , although for simple games, I don't think this would be an
issue.

Newer work like Reactive is much more faithful to functional
programming (no arrow syntax needed), but since no pong game was never
made with it yet, I would classify this as ongoing research.

Elerea finds middle ground between the two, and unlike Yampa, it's
examples would still work I guess.


On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Ben Christy <ben.christy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Assuming Haskell is ready has any work gone into creating design patterns or
> the like. One of the biggest problems is ALL of the literature regarding
> game programming is written in an imperative style. My goal for learning
> Haskell is to make a hobby game written in a Functional language but I am at
> a loss how to go about it. I an imperative language I would set up a central
> entity management system and then have subsystems register with it and
> either transform the entities such as AI or user interface or do something
> with them IE graphics. This paradigm just will not work as far as I can
> imagine in Haskell.
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Jake McArthur <jake.mcarthur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/23/2010 02:17 PM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO: For AAA game programming? Definitely not.
>>
>> Why not? I suppose it may depend on your definition of "AAA," since there
>> doesn't seem to be any consensus on it. I have seen it mean various
>> combinations of the following, but rarely, if ever, all of them:
>>
>>  * Big development budget
>>  * Big marketing budget
>>  * High quality
>>  * Large number of sales and/or high revenue
>>  * High hardware requirements
>>  * Released by one of a small group of accepted "AAA" publishers
>>
>> While I think it's very unlikely that the last one will happen any time
>> soon, I don't see any reason that Haskell and/or FRP (or as I now prefer to
>> call my research in the area, Denotative Continuous-Time Programming, or
>> DCTP) inherently can't be a major part of the development of a game that
>> fits any of the definitions in the list.
>>
>> I suppose DCTP is not itself *ready* for somebody to risk a business
>> investment on it, although it may be in the future, but Haskell as a whole
>> would not be all that risky, in my opinion.
>>
>> - Jake
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>