Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 09:37:32

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Christian Schladetsch <
christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Carlos Rafael Giani <
> e0325834_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > joel wrote:
> >
> >> Make this some kind of boost::graphics, target both dx and ogl or w/e in
> a
> >> seamless fashion, then you have something worthy.
> >>
> >>
> > This is commonly found in 3D graphics engines. However, a low level
> ogl/dx
> > abstraction is time-consuming, and ultimately not worth it, because both
> > APIs, while roughly equal, differ in many details, which sums up in a
> > low-level abstraction that covers the lowest common denominator. It is
> > better to abstract in a higher semantic level, however this is hard to
> > accomplish as a general 3D rendering library (and probably not very
> useful,
> > since rendering applications vary wildly in their feature requirements
> and
> > applied techniques).
>
>
> I have repeatedly stated my belief that it is futile, if not insane, to
> attempt to make a system that uses either DirectX or OpenGL.
>

Definitely not futile.  Insane, maybe.  Alot of commercial 3d graphics
engines support both (or at least they used to).  A lot of games support
both.  Even if these games / engines simply implement two completely
separate engines with a switch statement to choose between them, there still
must be some common interface.  I also don't think that such a library would
need to be complete, or even almost complete.  Just allowing basic 3d
functionality in a cross platform manner would be enough to warrant serious
consideration.  And just think, once it _is_ in Boost, with minimal opengl
support and minimal directx support, a bunch of other developers would
likely jump on board and do a lot of the things you don't want to do.