[SDL] SDL 1.3 status ?

Vittorio G. vitto.giova at yahoo.it
Fri Jul 29 02:59:53 PDT 2011


I'll second that, I'm in favor of removing SDL_compat, adding simple
2d manipulation features (like rotozooming) and leaving the software
render as it is.
What I'm really against is adding compile-time symbols or macros that
lead to very painful development environments.

just my 3.14$ cents
Vittorio

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jared Maddox <absinthdraco at gmail.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I'm in favor of removing the compatibility
> support, keeping software rendering, and adding a stand-alone (so it's
> useful for general image manipulation) roto-zoomer function.
>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:07:08 -0700
>> From: Nicholas Vining <mordred at icculus.org>
>> To: sdl at lists.libsdl.org
>> Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL 1.3 status ?
>> Message-ID: <4E30EE7C.8020005 at icculus.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>> Based on what we want to do for the next
>> game, I'm going to end up writing an actual OpenGL renderer, and that's
>> going to be a support nightmare. Them's the breaks, I suppose.
>>
> If it isn't especially complex, you might try using TinyGL instead of
> just whatever OpenGL implementation the users have, it's purely
> software, supposed to be fast, and it looks like there was at least an
> attempt to port it to SDL. If it'll work for your case, then it'll
> (hopefully) be easier to support than the alternatives.
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>



More information about the SDL mailing list