I hear you and I sympathize. Which is to say, I appreciate your enthusiasm but don't really agree with your premises. I realize that GLUT is advertised as a "not ready for prime time toy" but the truth of the matter is that it is already fairly prime time. On the other hand, the application that I am using GLUT for contains upwards of fifty windows and runs on Unix, Linux, and Windows. There are probably a lot of other applications out there that are using GLUT for prime time. So I think the GLUT advertising is perhaps a little inaccurate.
The question of intrinsic value in GLUT reminds me of the VHS vs. Beta videotape format war in the 1980's. From what I recall, Beta was of considerably higher quality than (original) VHS but was slightly more expensive, and after a while VHS simply captured the market. The intrinsic value to VHS then was simply that most people's video recorders would play VHS tapes and not Beta tapes. The same is true with GLUT compatibility: not necessarily that GLUT is particularly good (although I would argue that it is), but that there are a lot of applications out there that use GLUT already. If we want them to change over to "freeglut", we need to make that transition as painless as possible.
I will echo what Steve Baker said and add a bit more. If you like, you can take "freeglut", add your own features to it, remove what you don't like, and publish it under another name. Alternatively, you can take "freeglut", modify it as you see fit, offer the changes back to the community, and accept a polite "Thank you but no thank you." Or (if my humble attempts above have convinced you) you can accept that we value GLUT compatibility and carry on with us. If I may express a personal preference, I hope you choose the third path. We have benefited from your contributions and I would like very much to continue to benefit from them.
John F. Fay
From: Kenny Tilton [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Freeglut-developer] gluGetWindow issue?
Steve Baker wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>> The good news (for you--bad news for me) is that my quest to make
>>> "freeglut" behave exactly like GLUT...
>> But what does that buy you (besides a lot of grief <g>)? Free your
>> Glut (to move beyond Mark's), and the rest will follow. My 2c.
> I agree with John 100% - the *MAIN* purpose for freeglut is as a 100%
> (or as close as we can reasonably get) clone of GLUT. Any addons and
> enhancements are icing on the cake - but cannot be allowed to detract
> from freeglut's main purpose.
But I am asking what intrinsic value there is in the Glut. It is openly
advertised as a toy which is Not Ready For Prime Time. So the only value
in downward compatibility is... what? supporting people who want to
continue using a tool Not Ready For Prime Time?
I say free the glut from its humble aspirations, stand on Mark's
shoulders, see further. Anyone who is happy with their toy can stay with
it. FG is interesting only if it rises to the status of Prime Time.
The purpose of the Glut is window management system independence to go
along with the imaging independence provided by GL and GLU. Your only
commitment is to WM independence.
Well, don't mind me. I am as suggested kinda just hacking away at FG to
suit my own purposes, expecting to use BeyondCompare to keep up with FG
improvements. This is just the enthusiast in me prattling on.
"Cells let us walk, talk, think, make love and realize
the bath water is cold." -- Lorraine Lee Cudmore
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
Freeglut-developer mailing list