Reddit Reddit reviews Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics)

We found 4 Reddit comments about Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Arts & Photography
Books
Graphic Design
Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics)
Check price on Amazon

4 Reddit comments about Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics):

u/erich666 · 18 pointsr/Minecraft

Yeah, I'd love that, it's on my own wishlist. The original minutor code was multiplatform and I tried to keep it that way, with the "MinewaysMap" project being in pretty portable C. No doubt some Microsoft-isms have snuck in, but I personally don't have the time to port it myself (I'm supposed to be helping rewrite a book). It's be great to have the front-end be based on, say, Qt.

u/gloggy · 4 pointsr/computergraphics
  1. Essential Mathematics for Games and Interactive Applications is excellent and is indispensable for me.

  2. Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics is an awesome reference (but keep the errata handy, there are quite a few mistakes - they really need to bring out a second edition). You will find stuff in here that you will struggle to find elsewhere and Eberly is an actual mathematician with a focus on high-performance code. The book should be a lot more famous than it is. It is a bit dense (but the previous recommendation will adequately prepare you).




u/0x2a · 2 pointsr/learnprogramming

Ok, then for the math side you may want to look into David Eberly's Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics. It starts with matrices, vectors and linear systems and then tackles specific stuff like distance in 2d or intersection in 3d.

He has also some other books I've never read but look interesting:
http://www.geometrictools.com/Books/Books.html

u/dakta · 1 pointr/programming

And that is an entirely reasonable way to interview the kind of person you're interviewing most of the time. However, I'm talking about companies that use that same interviewing tactic on everybody, including the example person I just used. It sounds like you have more sense than to do that, but it's a fairly common practice in companies where this sort of person is more common to appear on the interview scene.

My grievance is with those people who treat all applicants as if they're either fresh out of school, or new to the industry. I've seen it happen. It's commonplace at Google, Microsoft, and Pixar (surprising as it may seem). I've seen it happen to a good friend if mine, someone with exactly the credentials I outlined (here's a link to a comment with more explanation, and another with some more of my thoughts about this).

The gist is this: a friend of mine who has been working in the computer graphics industry for nearly 30 years, and who has done that work at Apple, Disney, and ILM and written a well regarded book on the subject (read the comments, and please know that another edition is in the works to fix the most common complaint: that of it being filled with things which could be much more clear or otherwise better polished), was recently laid off from his job at ILM (for reasons unknown), which prompted a number of other programmers in the department to leave because of how the management treated him (but I'll not get into the internal politics of that, which I don't fully understand), and how highly they regarded him. He then began a six month job hunt, applying for qualified positions at numerous companies, including Nvidia (they were unable to find him a suitable position), Autodesk (again, no good positions available), Google (they got so far as an all-day interview, the whiteboard portion of which he failed, though he did in fact study extraordinarily; they didn't even send him an email after the interview), Pixar (same case as Google, but they even had a good position for him; got in for an interview, failed the whiteboard portion, didn't even send him an email after it), Pixologic (where he is currently employed, though not entirely happily, only because the guy who runs it is such a weird dude that he doesn't interview like anyone else on the planet), and finally Smule (same case as Pixar, though an even better position, an ever better fit with the team, and they did respond back to an email he sent explaining what he finally understood was his weak point; they requested references, he gave them the ones he thought would give the best and most accurate impression of his abilities, they contacted his references, then no further contact with him).

So, I now realize that my problem is less with people who do whiteboard programming interviews, but more with people who just can't seem to interview someone properly according to their ability. Still though, my point is the same: if you do whiteboard interviews for people with experience and base your entire estimation on how they perform at that, you're setting yourself up for false negatives. I know that's less dangerous than false positives, but it doesn't make you look good as interviewers, and it eliminates potential people who could otherwise be a perfect fit, given a more rounded, sensible interviewing approach.