Re: [boost] boost::directx?
Hello, It is not about OpenGL, DirectX war, it is about Boost policy: http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Portability Quote: 1. A library's interface must portable and not restricted to a particular compiler or operating system. 2. A library's implementation must if possible be portable and not restricted to a particular compiler or operating system. If a portable implementation is not possible, non-portable constructions are acceptable if reasonably easy to port to other environments, and implementations are provided for at least two popular operating systems (such as UNIX and Windows). DirectX does is **strictly** Windows API, this violates requirement of Boost library portability. You may create general 3D graphics library with implementations in terms of DX for Win32 and OpenGL in terms of UNIX, and add some extended features for OS specific API, just like it is done in Boost.Interprocess or Boost.Asio. But in this case, I think it is just simpler and less error prone to use OpenGL, at least it would be consistent. Best, Artyom --- On Sun, 6/7/09, Christian Schladetsch <christian.schladetsch@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Christian Schladetsch <christian.schladetsch@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx? To: boost@lists.boost.org Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 1:04 PM It is certainly untrue to claim that DirectX is not relevant to C++. I do not think, and many others would agree, that OpenGL is a real alternative.
I have no wish in turning this into a flame war of DX vs GL. Whatever. I simply wanted to raise the idea of a boost::directx or boost::microsoft::directx namespace, to house common solutions.
The reality is that DirectX is here, it is supported by manufacturers, it is needed by C++ developers, and it will stay here.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
DirectX can't be relevant because it is not cross
platform API. I may
think of OpenGL but not DX.
Make this some kind of boost::graphics, target both dx and ogl or w/e in a seamless fashion, then you have something worthy.
Artyom
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hello Artyom,
It is not about OpenGL, DirectX war, it is about Boost policy
I fully grok boost's policies and ideas. If i wanted to be pendantic, I could name many cases where boosts' own primary policies have been bent, or broken. Boost is not set in stone. It came from the idea of helping people write good C++. That is the motivation behind my idea of having a boost::directx namespace. The hard reality is that a lot of people use C++ and DirectX. A lot of people use C++ *because* they use DirectX. Another group use DirectX because they use C++. Beyond all the formalities, I have to reduce myself to hand-waving. If you took a survey, in 2009 you will find that most people use C++ under Visual Studio. Fewer use linux-derivatives, and fewer again others use some custom vendors, but in reality, boost is addressing a Windows-oriented, performance-based audience. That is the reality. That audience not only includes but primarily consists of game developers. And they all use DirectX. So. Do you want cast down righteous fire from the ivory tower, or do you want to help the coders make performant applications? Regards, Christian
AMDG Christian Schladetsch wrote:
Hello Artyom,
It is not about OpenGL, DirectX war, it is about Boost policy
I fully grok boost's policies and ideas. If i wanted to be pendantic, I could name many cases where boosts' own primary policies have been bent, or broken.
Boost is not set in stone. It came from the idea of helping people write good C++.
That is the motivation behind my idea of having a boost::directx namespace.
The hard reality is that a lot of people use C++ and DirectX. A lot of people use C++ *because* they use DirectX. Another group use DirectX because they use C++.
Beyond all the formalities, I have to reduce myself to hand-waving. If you took a survey, in 2009 you will find that most people use C++ under Visual Studio. Fewer use linux-derivatives, and fewer again others use some custom vendors, but in reality, boost is addressing a Windows-oriented, performance-based audience.
That is the reality.
As far as I am concerned, any library that doesn't not work on Linux/Windows/Mac is a non-starter for Boost. If anything I believe that the official rule should be bent towards being more strict than stated.
That audience not only includes but primarily consists of game developers. And they all use DirectX.
So.
Do you want cast down righteous fire from the ivory tower, or do you want to help the coders make performant applications?
Irrelevant. The fact that a library would be useful to many people does not imply that it belongs in Boost. In Christ, Steven Watanabe
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Christian Schladetsch<christian.schladetsch@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] Beyond all the formalities, I have to reduce myself to hand-waving. If you took a survey, in 2009 you will find that most people use C++ under Visual Studio. Fewer use linux-derivatives, and fewer again others use some custom vendors, but in reality, boost is addressing a Windows-oriented, performance-based audience.
That is the reality.
I would be quite surprised if this were true. In fact I thought that most windows development was moving to .NET and C#. It might still be the case that for shrink wrapped software, C++ windows development is still dominant, but this type of software devlopment is, AFAIK, dwarfed by in-house software development. Do you have any numbers? -- gpd
participants (4)
-
Artyom -
Christian Schladetsch -
Giovanni Piero Deretta -
Steven Watanabe