Hacker News Reader

Comment by fluffybucktsnek | Hacker News Reader

No, not every ECS implementation is about data storage (to be more precise, component storage). This architecture's abstraction being better suited for data locality is the main appeal, yes, but many appreciate the mere separation of the GameComponent's Components into Components and Systems. So your assertion about it being strictly meant for data storage is just wrong. As [2] states:

> Data is often stored in cache-friendly ways which benefits performance.

Notice it says often, not always.

And bear in mind, generally, data structures aren't just about storing data. They are about storing data in a very particular way.

View on HN

(to be more precise, component storage)

That's data, so it stores data, meaning it is a data structure.

So your assertion about it being strictly meant for data storage is just wrong.

No, using a data structure doesn't mean it isn't one.

Notice it says often, not always.

This doesn't matter. You're way off the map in what causes 50MB binaries.

data structures aren't just about storing data. They are about storing data in a very particular way.

Same thing, you're pretty deep in the replies and still not making a point.

> That's data, so it stores data, so it's data structure.

Technically, the component storage is, at best, a ADS. But that's grasping at straws given that you can just store components directly in a function's stack frame. Still, the component storage isn't "the ECS" in the same way that a service injector isn't "the Clean Architecture ", even though you'll always have them in some form in each.

> No, using data structure doesn't mean it isn't one.

Now, where did I say that?

> This doesn't matter.

For the discussion of whether ECS is a data structure, it is, given that you previously stated that ECS was meant for storing data, and "often" contradicts that.

> You're way off the map in what causes 50MB binaries.

I haven't asserted anything about it. You did, and you have yet to prove it.

> Same thing

Pretty much everything stores data in someway. Which brings us back to the "kernel is a data structure in your eyes?" question from earlier. I don't think it is me who isn't making much of a point.

No one knows or cares about whatever "ADS" is, injector services or 'clean architecture'. It seems like you're caught up in so much nonsense that you don't think that a class meant to store data is a data structure.

ADS stands for Abstract Data Structure. ECS ain't even a class. Nothing you're saying now is making sense.

Edit: checking now ADS is a too literal of a translation (English isn't my first language). The more appropriate term is ADT.

ECS ain't even a class.

ECS is an abstract term for a data structure. Have you ever programmed before?

> ECS is an abstract term for a data structure.

Sources? I have cited mine for why it isn't.

You want a source for saying an ecs can be implemented as a class? It's all over github.

Then, surely, you should be able to find a link to a ECS class's source easily. So where is it?

Also, remember, it's not my responsibility to search to prove your arguments. Burden of proof is on the claimant, as it goes.

https://jslee02.github.io/awesome-entity-component-system/

Funny, there are no classes named "ECS" in that link. In fact, there are no classes at all, because you didn't actually link a class source. Why push the step of searching for the class towards the reader when you could do it yourself? Wasn't it easy? I wonder why?

Taking a cursory look (which is already beyond my responsibilities) at https://github.com/redxdev/ECS/blob/master/ECS.h, by searching "class ECS" and "struct ECS" and "EntityComponentSystem" wields no results.

They're ecs, some of them are wrapped in classes. Classes are just a simple programming structure. You should probably learn how to program before arguing all this stuff.

>They're ecs, some of them wrapped in classes.

No, they aren't.

> You should probably learn how to program before arguing all this stuff.

Notice how I didn't reveal whether I program or not, yet you still made assumptions about it. I suspect that you either are a poor programmer or a troll.

you either are a poor programmer or a troll.

Didn't you just say something about "ad hominem" (even though you used it incorrectly, pointing out something negative if it's related is not ad hominem).

You don't know what a data structure is or what a class does or doesn't do, that's not something programmers have to worry about. They don't have to consult wikipedia for a definition.

It would be ad hominen argument if it was an argument, not a side note. Whereas, in your case, you used to dismiss my position as "no real programmer needs to consult the Wikipedia for definitions" (according to whom, you?).

Since you failed to cite any third party source for definitions, whether your definitions are actually conventional depend solely on your authority as a programmer, in contrast to me, who cited Wikipedia (and there are many others I can cite too). An attack on your authority is no longer a fallacy, but, towards me, it is, since I never relied on my authority as a programmer.

Never mind the fact that being a good programmer doesn't mean you know the definition of technical terms.

I linked you hundred different ecs data structures, did you ever learn how to program?

Never mind the fact that being a good programmer doesn't mean you know the definition of technical terms.

Yes it does. How would you know?

Your link was basically a gish-gallop. I explicitly asked to asked link an "ECS" class source, instead you link an index of ECS libraries/engines/frameworks (not data structures, mind you). I picked the first, showed there was no "ECS" class, and your retort was "Theyre ecs". Now, your only retort is basically "all programmers now this". Can't speak for all programmers, but if someone were to ask for a array list implementation, I can easily directly link to Rust's Vec, or C++'s std::vector, or Java's ArrayList. Why can't you do the same for ECS if: a) it's also a class; b) it's easy to find?

> Yes it does. How would you know?

Better question: why being a good programmer guarantees you good knowledge about technical definitions? Being a good mason doesn't mean you have the formal knowledge of a civil engineer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com