[SDL] SDL 1.3 status ?

Mason Wheeler masonwheeler at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 28 07:36:29 PDT 2011


>From: Tim Angus <tim at ngus.net>

>Subject: Re: SDL 1.3 status ?
>
>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.

Fair enough.  One less reason to let it influence decisions about the
future of SDL, then. :)

>> 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.

If I can't use SDL textures for sprites, I need something else.  If I'm not
using SDL video, I can't use SDL events, because the two are very tightly
coupled.  I also can't use SDL_Image, for obvious reasons.  Without
SDL video and SDL events, I have no need for the library at all, except
the subset that SDL_Mixer is dependent on.

>> 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?

My point is, it's ~150 lines of code and requires 10 local variables, 10
if statements, 5 returns and 4 ifdefs.  That's a whole lot of complexity
required to correctly set up a texture, which I'm really glad to not have
to deal with or reimplement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20110728/e0398dd1/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the SDL mailing list