On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Jos Hulzink wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Brian S. Julin wrote: > > > Heya, > > > > Just throwing this to the gallery for comments. > > > > We have three new lowlevel libraries which (along with LibGGIMISC) > > will be forming the core of the intermediate API for the GGI Project, > > LibBuf, LibBlt, and LibOvl. > > Great... Congratulations... what is GGI about ? to get as many > different libs as possible ? No. GGI is about to structure itself. :) > Anyway, have been talking with some programmers lately, trying to > promote GGI / KGI, and had to admit they got good reasons not to use > GGI. I'm just passing them through, don't take them personal from me: > > 1) Lack of 3D support. There are many libs available that can do this > at the moment. Indeed they are not so flexible as GGI is, but they are > cross-platform and use accelleration. Most programmers just want a > normal window (might be fullscreen) to draw to, with accelleration. > (see 3) > > 2) Drowning in libs. Their complaint was GGI doesn't look like a solid > system, but as a heap of many small stand alone thingies. > Documentation about them doesn't seem up to date. > > 3) Wrong priorities. To quote one of the guys I spoke to: "Nice to see > someone has been hacking GGI to run on that Compaq handheld (with my > personal compliments). Nice to see GGI running on a cube. Nice to see > gdoom running in 16 separate windows, nice to see it running on aalib. > Where is the 3D support ???" These 3 arguments can be boiled down to one: GGI misses 3d support. What I currently can say is, that 3d support will be added as soon as the 2d part has been majored. Being able to render 3d scenes requires triangle/polygon rendering along with z-buffer support (and some other features like alpha-blending, which is nice for the human eye). And this is a 2d feature (or better a pseudo 3d feature). > 4) They are working on everything at the same time, instead of trying > to get something really finished. This was said to be a reason not to > join the GGI development: They simply didn't know where to start, for > there was a lot of half-finished code, causing a lot of confusion. This causes confusion for those, who don't understand the basic principles of GGI. Yes, we are developing many things at the same time. This has the advantage to carefully design and develop all things along together. Yes, this process needs more effort, but results in a higher quality other projects can only dream about. > -- > > Personally, I think especially the lack of 3D will kill GGI sooner or > later. I have been thinking about how to do it, and was thinking we > shouldn't reinvent the wheel, but create a LibGGGL. (GL compatability > layer), using the OpenGL syntax. Do you know about MesaGGI? > Don't have time right now to explain, but please feel free to fire > your bullets at me already. *peng* *peng* *peng* *click* :P CU, Christoph Egger E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
