On 06/08/2007, at 8:01 AM, mmarshall wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 1:12 pm, mithrandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm wondering whether the plan is to maintain an independent set of >> wrappers, or to migrate to PyOpenGL-ctypes at some point. Could >> someone fill me in on the plans for the future? > > IIRC pyglet tries to minimize dependencies, so PyOpenGL won't be > used. However, pyglet's wrapping of OpenGL isn't meant to be > complete; it's only what pyglet itself uses. You'll need to use > PyOpenGL for the rest. > That was more or less the original plan. pyglet wraps OpenGL at the lowest level, so it only provides glVertex3f, glVertex2d, etc., whereas PyOpenGL also provides polymorphic functions such as glVertex. I have found (and others have agreed) that this is not altogether a bad thing, as it requires less thought when moving between C and Python code. pyglet provides all of the error-checking functionalities that PyOpenGL does (though these can be disabled for performance). At last check, pyglet was significantly faster than PyOpenGL 3, but slower than PyOpenGL 2. I'm not sure what the current status is. What this means for application developers is: you can use pyglet's GL wrappings and be confident of universal availability, fast performance and error checking. You can, at your option, use PyOpenGL with pyglet for possibly better performance (this is unknown) or to use the polymorphic functions. No extra setup is required to do this: pyglet.gl and PyOpenGL function calls can be freely intermixed. I will be keeping the pyglet.gl wrappings up-to-date as new releases from nVidia and the ARB are made. Alex. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
