In article <401fd1cb$1@news.povray.org> , "Dan P" 
<dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> I am
> saying that DirectX is a  hardware abstraction layer and, thus, is not just
> for games. For example, I used Vegas Audio which uses DirectSound -- part of
> DirectX. The fact that Thorsten says it is only for games shows his
> ignorance about DirectX, but notice I didn't flame him because I have too
> much tact.

First, I did not say that it is only for games, I only pointed out that
there are other applications that use 3D graphics than just games.  You were
the one who said "Don't give me no guff about DirectX... I don't see SGI
working it's tail-off to make OpenGL better, but Microsoft is clamoring to
do so because of their gaming franchise [...]".  So, it was you who clearly
said that DirectX is only being heavily developed because of the market for
games.

But lets settle this once and for all, Microsoft is very clear about what
DirectX is for:

>>>
Where Applicable
DirectX is a set of low-level application programming interfaces (APIs) for
creating games and other high-performance multimedia applications. It
includes support for high-performance 2-D and 3-D graphics, sound and music,
input, force feedback, multimedia streaming, and network communication for
applications such as multiplayer games.
<<<
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/directx9cpp.asp>

So, you can hardly claim more.  The term "other high-performance multimedia
applications" is a rubberband marketing phrase, so I am sure you are going
to be interpreting it in your favor no matter what I say, so I am just not
saying anything about it.

> Never said a thing about DirectX.

"Don't give me no guff about DirectX... I don't see SGI working it's
tail-off to make OpenGL better, but Microsoft is clamoring to do so because
of their gaming franchise [...]"

Which obviously says (not implies) that OpenGL is no being improved, but
Direct X is.  So you clearly said something in favor of DirectX and in
disfavor of OpenGL.  Anyway, your claim "Never said a thing about DirectX."
is plain wrong...

> And, to your second point, "Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly
> anything is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason
> to respond to him. Do not take anything he says for fact; hardly anything
> is. There is no point to argue on such a level and thus no reason to respond
> to him." - Thorsten. Pretty hard to take that the right way. Talk about
> your inferences!

Hmm, lets see, earlier in this thread you claimed "to having that fflush
there might help us avoid future bugs. Also, even though the C standard
requires this, experience has shown me that not everybody keeps to the
standard when they write their C compilers (see Visual Studio). To me,
flushing the buffer is kindof like closing a file.".

Honestly, for me to say this isn't a "fact" is about the nicest thing to
say.  The opposite of "fact" can be, depending on the context (law or common
speech) be an "opinion" or "fiction".  However, your claim about fflush and
fclose is indeed best described as pure and indisputable "nonsense".

And the fact that you keep this discussion going also confirms my initial
point.  You didn't want a serious discussion, just a forum to distribute
what you consider "facts".  Yet, I would appreciate you stop making
incorrect claims about things I never said and instead reflect on the amount
of nonsense and irrelevant content compared to valuable content you have
produced or caused up until now in this thread.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message