iceqb <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> If you're gonna make SDL an object-oriented language, you have to be
> prepared
> to start from scratch, because the current implementation isn't even close
> to
> that ideal. That means a new syntaxis with classes, structs, ... which
> inevitably means relearning the whole deal!

  There's no reason why the new SDL could not resemble the current one.
  Some small changes may be necessary, but it shouldn't be something
unsurmountable. Besides, a compatibility import-mode for old SDL code
is also possible.

> Here's an other objection to extending SDL : security. With more
> implementations
> on file I/O in the SDL, it would be possible to overwrite crucial
> systemfiles
> (on Windows, doubtably on Linux), and corrupt the entire system. (thinking
> virus or trojan!)

  You can already do that with the current SDL (assuming you haven't
configured the file restrictions correctly), so what's the big deal?

> Another thing, what if you do rewrite SDL, and you do, as you say develop
> libraries for artists, that means double shifts, wright because you can't
> release it before the libraries, or no artist would understand it. (I might
> be willing to learn, others won't)

  You don't need libraries to create the basic scenes you can already
create with the current SDL. Just some small syntactical changes would
need to be learnt.

-- 

                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message