Shawn Rutledge wrote:
So do you agree that Scheme ought to have portable flonums even when
the hardware doesn't support floating-point, by substituting
fixed-point instead?
Uuuh, dunno dude. "Ought to have" is mighty strong language. Oughtn't
you implement it? Besides, for the problems you've been describing, you
just sound like someone who's obsessing about performance for not much
gain. Maybe there are legitimate problems where "I must have fixed
point!" is paramount, but you haven't described one yet. We're way past
that stage of 3D history.
What I'm proposing is to do that, and then use OpenGL ES or something
like it on small devices, and regular OpenGL on large devices, and
keep the API the same so that the Scheme OpenGL programs will run
unchanged on either one.
What is your basic market motive for wanting things to "run
everywhere?" How do you personally benefit from this, aside from some
kind of programmer aesthetic satisfaction that "things have been
perfected?" How will others benefit from this? The problem is, if it's
just your own whim, then nobody else is going to do the maintenance
upkeep on it. So that portability will never happen. People need a
stronger reason for it to happen than "well I'd like it to be that
way." Sure. I'd like an airplane to always take off when I board it,
to never suffer maintenance delays. But that's not how the airline
industry actually works. My point is, most people in Schemeland live
and die by their implementations. There's likely no value in "run
everywhere." Never mind all the disparate HW we've already commented on.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
