On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Peter Bindels <dascandy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Christian,
2009/6/8 Christian Schladetsch <christian.schladetsch@gmail.com>
I have repeatedly stated that I have no wish in (re-)virtualising hardware, providing a generalised API, or arguing about OpenGL. I proposed the name to be boost::directx because I am concerned about game developers that use C++, DirectX, and boost. I am not interested in boost::graphics or similar attempts at nightmare creation.
DirectX cannot be portable, outside of the muliple platforms that it already
supports: Xbox360 (native and XNA) and Windows, and WINE.
I interpret the Boost rule on portability to have a basis of "the basics must be platform-independant and portable, and you must show this by implementing at least two platforms' worth of it". If you start off by stating your intent is to wrap DirectX it very strongly feels like a bad idea to add it to Boost, as it'll break the assumptions (valid or not) many people have about Boost.
I'm interested in a cross-platform graphics base system and I don't care what it's based on. OpenGL is not as dead as you would like it to be, nor is OpenGL ES.
I haven't followed the discussion and I apologize if I'm repeating something, but in my mind if three is a useful library A, and if we could provide a layer (wrapping?) which makes library A work better with Boost, the only question should be how popular library A is, and how many of library A's users would benefit from an easier Boost integration.
Specifically, what platforms that library runs on is not important.
It is important to the ideal of Boost, in my humble opinion (and interpretation of the stated goals of Boost.) /David