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. Kind regards, Peter Bindels