Re: [SDLmm-general] The very last question

[David H. <da...@he...>]

Andreas Kloeckner <ak...@ix...> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:19:10AM +1000, Adam Gates wrote:
> > Sorry for ignoring your emails. I was leaving it to David to answer as
> > he is the leader.
> > 
> > I have had a look at your code for sdlucid. And I must say I don't like
> > it. At least not for sdlmm. Sdlmm is only trying to be a c++ wrapper for
> > sdl. It should have no dependencies on other libraries.
> 
> As I've said before, if it's only about the library dependency - forget it.
> That code could be integrated into the wrapper in case ixlib isn't present.

The one main issue in my opinion is that SDLmm aim to be extremely
close to the SDL syntax, whether it's a good idea or not. I know that
SDL doesn't have the most consistent function names etc, but if a
library had completely different syntax, like your lib, that does make
the initial learning curve higher for someone who already knows SDL.

> > We already have
> > the video stuff completed.
> 
> i.e. wrapped. No additional functionality, no additional abstraction?
> Is this what you want? 

No, not quite. Wrapped as in similar syntax. We will have additional
functionality like drawing primitives etc (we already have some).

> > The only other area you have covered seems to
> > be audio. I am not that familiar with the audio side as I haven't
> > actually used it or seen an example.
> 
> I don't know whether integrating your video and my audio would be a good
> idea.

I would like to cooperate, but the main issue is the difference in
goals. You want an STL like interface to SDL etc, while SDLmm aim for
an SDL like interface. Are you willing to change? Probably not. Are
we? Probably not. So what else can we do?

-- 
[ Below is a random fortune, which is unrelated to the above message. ]
Cahn's Axiom:
	When all else fails, read the instructions.