![]() ![]() Their charter is to make a new lightweight API that meets the needs of device manufacturers and low level app developers. Also there is a line where you cross and you lose hardware acceleration and the mapping breaks down. The makers of OpenGL ES don't want a lifetime of maintaining someone elses problem. The problem is a 100% compatibility layer is not necessarily easy nor valuable. Javascript without the bad parts for example.Īn incremental only approach to design is non-design in my view.Įvolution both promotes and retires ideas.ĭisclaimer: I've dabbled as a driver writer in a past life - but not OpenGL ES. Imagine if every API or language you ever used had features both added and removed over time to make it a better language. Otherwise APIs and languages expand at an unfathomable rate. This is not to say backwards compatibility should not be provided in some form - but ejecting it from the core is a sane decision. In my experience, backwards compatible APIs and languages are what makes development a pain going forward. JWZ is a very smart guy and I respect his opinion, but he is coming from a narrow viewpoint and not considering the wider implications. ![]() ![]() The point is to prune back the API for small devices - NOT - to make make migration of legacy code simple.įor sure it would be nice if it came with a client side library to emulate OpenGL to assist in migration where people dont care about foot print size or perf. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |