[SDL] SDL 1.3 status ?

Bob Pendleton bob at pendleton.com
Wed Jul 27 23:26:38 PDT 2011


On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, please.  And while we're at it, can we please finally remove support
> for the non-accelerated
> rendering backends that are holding SDL back?

Oh YES! Pretty please? I've been asking for that for t many years.
And, as for the Linux problem.... it doesn't exist. Really, it
doesn't. I have lost count of how many years it has been since I have
had any problem getting accelerated OpenGL running on a LInux box.
I've been doing it since at least 2000. And, it became trivial in the
early days of Ubuntu and Fedora. It just isn't a problem anymore.

So, speaking as someone who uses Linux for almost everything....  (I
find that I am ethically bound to use MS Office running on WIndows to
grade work done in Office on Windows because of them minuscule chance
that Office running on wine or crossover might give a result that
would affect a students grade.) I feel perfectly fine dropping support
for non-accelerated platforms.

Bob Pendleton


> I'm sure the desktop Linux folks will raise a big hue and cry about it again
> because they can't seem
> to get working OpenGL drivers in a lot of cases, but the fact of the matter
> is, desktop Linux is
> irrelevant because the actual users are simply not using it.  The serious
> platforms today are
> Windows (guaranteed D3D and GL in 99%+ of all cases), mobile *nix
> (guaranteed GLES on all
> platforms I'm aware of) and, to a much lesser extent, OSX (guaranteed GL in
> all cases).  Desktop
> Linux *still* has less than 1% market share, and only a fraction of that
> tiny fraction actually cares
> about gaming.  And for them, there's still SDL 1.2.
> It makes no sense to let a tiny fraction of a percent hold SDL 1.3/2.0 back
> from implementing
> modern rendering features.
> Mason
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Pendleton <bob at pendleton.com>
> Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL 1.3 status ?
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Ryan C. Gordon <icculus at icculus.org> wrote:
>> On 7/24/11 12:15 PM, Jonathan Dearborn wrote:
>>>
>>> I still favor bumping it up to SDL 2 before making the naming decisions,
>>> since it is such a big, purposefully incompatible upgrade.
>>
>> To be fair, 1.3 was meant to be the unstable development version that
>> becomes a stable 2.0.
>>
>> --ryan.
>
> Hey Ryan,
>
> The last time I tried to anything serious with 1.3 (a while back I
> admit) I wound up adding the compile flag that disables/removes the
> compatibility layer. I did that because the compatibility layer kept
> messing me up. I would accidentally use something from the
> compatibility layer and it would cause something to run really slow or
> mess up in some other way and then I would spend time figuring out
> what I was doing wrong. OK, so what I am trying to say is that we
> should just dump the compatibility layer because it complicates the
> code and confuses programmers and we should bump the version to 2.0 at
> the same time all the compatibility code is pulled.
>
> I think that pulling the compat layer would speed development by
> freeing use from any need to stay compatible with 1.2. Right now every
> time anyone thinks of a change or addition you have to think "How will
> this effect compatibility?" Also, there is a bunch of code that is
> only there in 1.3 to retain compatibility. And, IIRC, some of it is
> wedged in to some really odd places.
>
> Moving to version 2.0 will confuse a lot of people.... But, a lot of
> people are waiting for it to happen too so it will generate a lot if
> interest. Maybe get a bunch of people working on it again? So.... Drop
> compat, move to version 2.0 add an extra . to the end of the version
> and make it something like version 2.0.00000 and update the last part
> of the version number for each patch so people can easily see how much
> progress is being made. (Ok, you can ignore the last part, but please,
> at least think about the rest of what I said.)
>
> Bob Pendleton
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> +-----------------------------------------------------------
> + Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
> + email: Bob at Pendleton.com
> + web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>
>



-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob at Pendleton.com
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com



More information about the SDL mailing list