"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:401fff62@news.povray.org...
> In article <401fd1cb$1@news.povray.org> , "Dan P"
> <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, the gaming market is affecting how much effort Microsoft puts into it
because of how much money it is making them. It is their motivator for
making it good and it will eventually pass OpenGL... EVENTUALLY pass
OpenGL... because of this.

> 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.

Your own words demonstrate you know, deep down inside, that you're on shaky
ground here because I'm making an "other high-performance multimedia
application". If you knew more about the DirectX API, you'd see that games
is just one of the applications for 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...

No, no, no, read it -- words have meanings -- I say SGI isn't clamoring, I'm
not saying other people aren't. However, because there is so much
on-the-line for Microsoft, I think DirectX will surpass OpenGL.

> > 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.".

Still having to nitpick the details, eh?

> 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".

STDOUT is buffered. I flushed a buffered stream. fflush is for flushing a
buffered stream. Is it so hard to imagine I'd make that decision in that
case, even if the compiler does it itself?

> 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.

You see, that's why I copy and paste what you say instead of summarizing it.
What I consider "facts"... again, debunk these facts, Thorsten. Debunk what
I have said. I don't care about distributing it -- I care about making a
patch editor, but if you're going to claim I'm wrong about the facts
regarding DirectX, then debunk them. Since the best you can do is nitpick
about fflush, something completely unrelated to the argument, I think at
this point you're just trying to save face. It must feel awful to have to
grasp like that. As if one misunderstanding (or even several) about a
complex field like computer programming makes me incompetent and not to be
listened to. It must be tiring to be so perfect, Thorsten.

Post a reply to this message