Posted by philjord on May 26, 2018; 9:36pm
URL: https://forum.jogamp.org/Java3D-and-Floating-Point-tp4038882p4038892.html

Zachary,
I agree whole-heartedly with Julien's sentiments.

The documentation that he directed you to appears to me to have no issues.

The 1.7 JavaDoc is labelled "pre" because 1.7 is in pre-release, so that's entirely accurate and appropriate. It is also complete and well written (by Sun and SGI engineers mainly, many years ago).

The 1.6 JavaDocs are marked final as that is the status of 1.6.

The use of the same server is obviously the best place for these documents (who would change servers, that's crazy).

The use of the same folder is utterly irrelevant, it's clearly named "Java3D API Documentation". It's a pity we don't have the rest of the previous releases up there as well, along with the tutorials and examples.

I'm the current main maintainer of Java3D, but I don't have a in depth background in number representation in computer science so I'm not really in a position to make a definitive decision about the value to Java3D of investigating the proposals you outline.

Two other aspects of this cause me to not priorities looking into it as a matter of urgency.

1/ Accuracy and speed are always a trade off in computer processing, the goals of Java3D include performance, but not numerical accuracy (which is incorporated only in the Locale object), and also specifically state performance will always be chosen over other factors. If however evidence arises that JEP 306 or Valhalla are faster than java.math.* then that would increase their desirability.

2/ You appear to be somewhat  belligerent in your communications more recently, which in and of itself is not a major issue, however on top of that you also appear (to me) to not have the Java3D community and ecosystem's best interests at heart. So this makes me less inclined to investigate the issues you raise.

Phil.