Re: [AD] official beta (Re namespace again)

["Gillius" <gillius@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 Oct 2001, at 15:25, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:

> On October 29, 2001 03:26 pm, you wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Personally I think correctness over convience is the important thing.
> > > You have to do what you have to do to make it correct, and the truth is
> > > that the Allegro API is in someways broken.
> >
> > This smacks of Linuxist elitism.  What we currently have is more stable and
> > more functional that what the general masses think is the stable official
> > version.  So let's just label the most stable recent WIP as 4.0, and you
> > can go back to the Linuxization of Allegro.
> >
> 
> I don't get why people keep saying that the wips are more stable than 3.*.
> Every other commit or two there is a new bug added which does get fixed
> but alot of the time some bugs get sucked into a WIP release...
> 
> Oh and that last little bit you wrote was quite rude...

I suppose that was.  Do I do agree that the current WIP is a superior 
product to 3.12, and the 3.12 should be "scrapped" so to say when we can, 
since many people see 3.12 as the latest official and think that is what 
Allegro has to offer, when it has surpassed much beyond that.

Chris: I was referring to the namespace conflicts, not its stability.  And 
I haven't had any Linux problems.  I wouldn't doubt there are some Linux 
problems with it, but I am referring to the Windows version where you have 
to include the alwindows.h or whatever file to let Allegro work with the 
Win32 API.  There is the BITMAP collision, and I believe some macros are 
colliding as well.

But I don't think I've ever heard a Windows developer on MSVC choosing that 
over Linux and GCC called a Linux elitist..  Although Linux is pretty darn 
cool ;).

Gillius