Re: Is Direct3D a rip-off of OpenGL?


fungus <umailMY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> loquated like no one had ever loquated
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> It is incredibly minor. Did you read the list? Half of those items
>> are "new enumerations" or "pass NULL for a new argument"
>
> New arguments in the middle of a function...!

People who think that a method change in a NEW INTERFACE in DirectX really
need to get a grip.

>> Holy crap, that's really difficult. That's a real issue for a
>> software engineer. How, oh how, will people ever move from 8 to 9?
>> Egads, it is un-possible.
>>
>
> I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm saying it broke
> your (working) code.

It does not. Moving to use a NEW INTERFACE, which you are under no
obligation to do, means that MAYBE a couple of functions which have the same
name as ones in the old interface have a new argument, oh wait. That
doesn't break my "working" code at all. It means that my NEW code using the
NEW interface using a NEW method that has the same name as the old method,
can't use the old method's argument list. Man, that's just ridiculous.
LOL.

>> Moving to a new DirectX interface is arguably easier than using a
>> new OpenGL extension depending upon the extension and the DirectX
>> feature (the point being you would want to argue the cases where the
>> extension is easier but ignore the cases where it is not.)
>>
>
> OPenGL has never broken any code.

Neither has DirectX.

> I can take code
> written ten years ago and compile it. It will use
> the latest hardware even without a recompile.

You can do the same with DirectX, although I've heard that some hardware
vendors don't handle DX3 execute buffers anymore.

> In DirectX you still ahev to choose between hardware
> T&L or software T&L when you choose the device. It
> really shouldn't be necessary....

Crazy, the idea that somebody may actually wish to enumerate the
capabilities of a video card before choosing a rendering path. Absolutely
nuts that is.

>>> Moving from DX5 to DX9 is easier? Really??
>>
>> Easier than what? It is easy, it isn't easier than
>> moving from 8 to 9.
>>
>
> Moving from 8 to 9 isn't really so bad. Just look
> at the compiler errors and tweak the code.

Why on earth would you do it so stupidly? I certainly would read up on the
differences between the interfaces, and then (most likely) create an
alternate rendering path using 99.9% re-usable code so that I could run with
whatever DirectX vesion I wanted to at the time, or just latest and
greatest.

> Moving from earlier versions needs a rethink. So
> many things ar changed/missing, eg. execute buffers,

I'm sorry, but that's DX3 you're talking about, and to be honest, moving
your rendering from execute buffers to more modern approaches is TRIVIAL.
It's just a bunch of packed up immediate mode calls like a display list.
Why do you insist on pretending it's like black magic? Lol.

> clip objects, etc. All gone. Code written a few years
> ago simply isn't going to compile with the latest SDK,
> period. No ifs, no buts, it really doesn't compile.

Sure it will, it compiles fine. Oh, wait, you mean to say "code written a
few years ago will not compile if you tell it to use a NEW interface and new
methods." Of course it won't, that's why there are NEW interfaces. You
don't mind being deceptive do you? ;)

> With OpenGL I don't even have to recompile, the exact
> same executable will run and use updated features.

Oh, my goodness, the opportunities provided by that statement :). A little
deceptive again?

WTH


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DirectX in HLA
    ... > which i submit is a difficult task given that DirectX makes copious ... _binary standard_ below language considerations exactly so that OOP ... "interface" only consists of public procedures and no data whatsoever, ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)
  • Re: DirectX in HLA
    ... > which i submit is a difficult task given that DirectX makes copious ... _binary standard_ below language considerations exactly so that OOP ... "interface" only consists of public procedures and no data whatsoever, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: creaping coupling......
    ... but it is a more strict contract than required. ... "I am capable of implementing things via interface XYZ i.e. ... consider specifically that we compile, deploy and then we delete a method to ... IWriteable pipe = new Pipe; ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: ActiveX.exe question
    ... > the public interface still need registered in order to use them. ... Compile AXExe.exe against a Share on the TestPC ... Open a Standard-Exe-Project on your DevelopPC and name it AXTest ... Compile AXTest.exe against the Share on the TestPC ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: RAD vs. performance
    ... thus they fulfull the number interface and can be used interchangeably. ... I'm not about to ditch statically typed languages ... Because you need whole-program optimisation for a start. ... The benefits of static typing come at compile time. ...
    (comp.lang.misc)