Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Peter Bindels (dascandy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 18:18:18
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
> be boost::directx because I am concerned about game developers that use
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk