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
>> 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
> 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
Specifically, what platforms that library runs on is not important.
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk