Hi Kasra, I have been following this thread but haven't really found the significance
of boost::directx!
I apologise for not being clearer from the outset If the purpose of the library is to create a comprehensive graphics library,
choosing directx or infact any other API seems absurd.
I have repeatedly stated that the purpose of the proposed library is to help people make performant applications using DirectX and C++. 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. For example, ORGE is a graphics library that doesn't choose OpenGL over
DirecX but provides a wrapping interface for a graphics library where this library's internal is OpenGL and DirectX depending on the platform.
I just think if this library is going to established within boost, it requires a portable interface irrespective of the internals.
DirectX cannot be portable, outside of the muliple platforms that it already supports: Xbox360 (native and XNA) and Windows, and WINE. 360 and Win32/64 are different platforms with two different API and kernels.
With Best Regards
--- Kasra Nassiri
Regards, Christian