3 ms·
I think maybe the problem with explaining ECS is that the database-like part you mention is just given a passing mention, rather than being a critical part of t
by bodge5000 4y ago
I think maybe the problem with explaining ECS is that the database-like part you mention is just given a passing mention, rather than being a critical part of the explanation. Obviously ECS is not a database which I think is why people avoid it, but it really helps for understanding it.
Entities are basically tables (just the table, not the data in the table), components are fields/data in them and systems are the SQL you write for them. Its obviously not a perfect representation, especially for components, but it gets the rough idea out there.
Maybe CSE is a better name for it. Its a longshot, but maybe entity being first in the list tricks people into thinking they play a big part, whereas actually they are, as you say, just an ID. Components are probably most important, then systems, then entities
- Negitivefrags 4y agoI would say Systems are Tables, Components are rows, and Entities are Primary Keys.
- bodge5000 4y agoEntities as primary keys is very good! Though as systems generally handle the data transformation, Im not sure they equate to tables
- spoiler 4y agoIMO most analogies kinda fall short, but kinda makes sense in my head is: Entity as ID; Components as Columns, but only kinda; Systems as Application code or functions Tables in this database/ECS analogy are just tables here too, or memory rather. The data is often conceptually (and implementation wise) laid out as tables in ECS, too