[SDL] SDL 1.3 status ?

Tim Angus tim at ngus.net
Thu Jul 28 07:13:25 PDT 2011

On 28/07/2011 14:54, Mason Wheeler wrote:
> It's not my argument; it's the one that the people arguing *against*
> my argument used last time this came up.

Regardless of whose argument it is, it's a poor one.

> You don't see rendering backends as sufficiently complex to warrant
> the "platform" designation? I do, which makes your distinction a case
> of splitting hairs.

No since OpenGL is portable enough that it doesn't need an abstraction
except for the parts which SDL already provides. I see SDL and OpenGL as

> I think it's silly to go and throw out the simplifying abstractions
> that serve me so well in the 90% case (which would basically require
> me to reimplement all of SDL, most likely with plenty of new bugs)
> just to get the 10% case working. That's crazy talk.

I think you're rather over-estimating how complicated OpenGL is to use.
You certainly don't need to "reimplement all of SDL" to make use of it.

> Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at the implementation of
> GL_CreateTexture in sdl_render_gl.c?

I hadn't since I don't use the SDL rendering API and don't really have
any interest in it. I've looked just now since you've effectively asked
me to. It looks fine to me? I'm not sure what your point is?

More information about the SDL mailing list