Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 18:40:57

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Peter Bindels <dascandy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> 2009/6/8 Christian Schladetsch <christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden]>
>
>> 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.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode