Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 18:46:05

On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Peter Bindels 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".

So you mean Windows XP and Windows Vista are not two platforms? ;-)

> 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.

Agreed. I would rather see an SDL and OpenGL effort under the Boost  
umbrella.

And if DirectX game developers want to use a special C++ wrapper but  
still want to use the name 'boost', they could always do

namespace boost {
        namespace directx = MyCoolDirectXWrapper;
}

;-)

/David