| Re: [AD] to prefix or not to prefix (sigh) |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
Lo'oRiS il Kabukimono wrote:
[snip]
this is completely not acceptable.
we *must not* break compatibility 2 times!
and planning it deliberately is terrible!
And why not? DirectX breaks source compatibility at every version! SDL has,
and I beleive other libraries have too. We *need* both changes and aren't
going to wait 3-4 years for them to be implemented.
if we break it we must do 1 single time:
now or never.
I completely disagree. The goal os 4.0 was multi-platformness, not a rewrite
of the API. The goal of 5.0 might be a rewrite of the API, in which case the
API will change. However, the problem with prefixing is a big one: we don't
want Allegro to step over other libraries (curses?) nor the other way around.
[snip]
Um, the issue of object-orientedness is completely orthogonal to the
issue
of C vs C++. Sorry.
[snip]
and i will remember u another time that allegro *is* a C library and
*not* a C++ library. if u and other people want to do a C++ port, ok
not bad, but i hope that Allegro will remain a pure C library, that's
one of the main reasons people use it.
I think that you are either not properly reading what I wrote. I said that
the C versus C++ issue is irrelevant. You can have object oriented programs
in C perfectly well (yes, that's regular plain old ANSI C). You can also
have procedural programs in C++. There is (nearly) relation in between
language and coding method. You can have object oriented programs in
assembly if you want. It won't be pretty, but it will work. Once again, C++
!= OO. C++ is OO, but OO is not C++. Early C++ compilers even converted
their code into C before compiling them. You *can* write objected oriented
programs in C. It's been done (Allegro 4.0), and it'll be done again
(Allegro 5.0).
--
- Robert J Ohannessian
"Microsoft code is probably O(n^20)" (my CS prof)
http://pages.infinit.net/voidstar/