[SDL] Re: BeOS issues

[Clifford T. Matthews]

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Lantinga <slouken at devolution.com> writes:

    Sam> David Sowsy wrote:
    >> Since gcc(egcs) exists now for BeOS Intel, is there an SDL
    >> version of Executor planned?

    Sam> There is already an SDL version of Executor, however there is
    Sam> much more to Executor than the graphics and sound code.  So,
    Sam> to answer your question, it's not being worked on, but we're
    Sam> tossing the idea around.  I'm going to CC this to Cliff who
    Sam> may be able to comment directly.

ARDI doesn't want to officially say anything about BeOS.  Unofficially
here's what's going on.  So far, Executor has had a number of
different front ends: native X, NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, DOS, svgalib,
Win32-DIB, and Win32/SDL.  We've dropped the NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP and
Win32-DIB implementations and currently ship native X, DOS, svgalib
and Win32/SDL.

SDL *appears* to be shaping up sufficiently well enough that starting
soon (perhaps this week), we'll likely switch to X/SDL.  Once that
transition is nicely made, I suspect we'll do a skunk-works port to
BeOS.  That is still probably a month or two away.  The nice thing
about this arrangement is that if SDL/BeOS is rock-solid the
skunk-works version of Executor/BeOS would suddenly be just as stable
as all the other versions of Executor.

Regards,

Cliff Matthews <ctm at ardi.com>
ctm at ardi.com