[SDL] 2D API evolution (SDL 1.3/2.0)

[David Olofson]

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 17:41, Bob Pendleton wrote:
[...]
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:56 +0200, David Olofson wrote:
> > I've been thinking about 2D rendering APIs every now and then, and
> > I usually come to the conclusion that if you want more than the
> > SDL 1.2 2D API, you're better of using OpenGL. (If you're into
> > massive blending and transformation effects, and don't care much
> > about non hardcore gamers running MS Windows, I still maintain
> > this position.) 
> > 
> > However, using OpenGL as the rendering API for a "mostly 2D" 
> > application has several issues;
> 
> [Big Snip]
> 
> I agree with your concerns, but I think I come to it from a
> different point of view. First off, I think a large part of the
> value of SDL 1.2 is the 2D API. It is hardly complete, but it does
> let you do a lot without having to learn very much, and it has
> pretty good performance. I believe it could be made complete and
> made to provide excellent performance an many/most platforms.
> 
> The key part of what I just said is that you don't have to learn
> very much to use it. And, since it is portable and reasonably stable
> (almost static) you can learn it once and use it for years. The
> value here is that you spend most of your time using the API, not
> learning the API. This is very important to those of us who want to
> spend out time writing applications rather than spending our time
> reading yet another set of documents.

This is exactly why I've been thinking in terms of extending the 
existing SDL 2D API in the simplest way possible, to get it a bit 
closer to the state of the art of 2D programming.

So I guess I did need more caffeine, then. ;-)

The learning curve of even a subset of OpenGL probably outweighs any 
advantages it may have over an extended SDL 2D API.


[...]
> I think the release of the XBox development system can be a real
> opportunity to make SDL even more widely used than it already is. A
> lot of people are going to start trying to write games for the XBox.
> About the second day after starting to work on their game they are
> going to go running to the Internet looking for tools that will hide
> all the ugly details of DirectX programming. SDL is bound to be
> ported to the XBox shortly after that. The better the 2D/3D support
> is the more SDL will be used on the XBox.

Looks like the new Direct3D backend could turn out to be of great 
importance to the future of SDL. :-)


Question is still, how far is the new SDL 2D API supposed to reach, 
before it's time to switch to a 3D API? And what 3D API do we switch 
too? (Obviously, OpenGL and/or Direct3D, if you really need the 
latest stuff.) Do we even need two different APIs for 2D and 3D? What 
is to be part of SDL, and what's better implemented as add-on 
libraries?


//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.-------  http://olofson.net - Games, SDL examples  -------.
|        http://zeespace.net - 2.5D rendering engine       |
|       http://audiality.org - Music/audio engine          |
|     http://eel.olofson.net - Real time scripting         |
'--  http://www.reologica.se - Rheology instrumentation  --'