I think the Python 2 vs. Python 3 is a real issue, I wouldn't hold that up as a great example.
I would like to see pygame more active. I know people have done work with GUI toolkits, better collision detection, and things like that. SDL 2.0 adds some easy wins, like being able to scale image textures easily and actually have transparency working. But it would be a large undertaking to get this working. I think Marcus has a great start with the ctypes shell on SDL. We need work to put a viable nice alternative on top of it. Paul Vincent Craven On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Sam Bull <sam.hack...@sent.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 15:12 -0500, Paul Vincent Craven wrote: > > I've started to build a pygamewrapper on top of Marcus's work. > > OK, so your project is on top of Marcus's, so there's really only one > pygame2 project then? Perhaps it might be an idea to add your wrapper as > an optional module or something then. > > > I like the idea of being able to use SDL 2.0 directly if you like. I > > think backwards compatibility is important. > > I would disagree with this. I think moving forward to pygame2, it could > be a good time to clean up and redesign any problem areas. Much the same > as SDL 2 and Python 3 have recently done. > > I would like to see a similar Pygame-like API though, we still want the > easy to use, and familiar design. But, existing projects can continue to > use pygame, while new projects should use pygame2, and so I don't think > there's a strong reason to ensure backwards compatibility. >
