| 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:
changes (ex: 3.0 vs 4.0), and not for a slight rename of the API.
if the "slight rename" breaks backwards compatibility, it *is* a
major change.
Exactly, that's why we're moving to 4.0 :)
I would rahter see it this way:
- 3.9.xx (3.5?) Current WIP (WIP40) + bug fixes
- 4.0 Prefixed API
i repeat, if we intend continue mantaining this version, it should be
nice if we gave it a good number, like 4.0;
remember that these wips we are now coding are wips towards 4.0
version, and it would be bad if the 4.0 wasn't compatible with all
his wips.
Well, WIP 40 isn't fully compatible with WIP 1. We'd just be introducing
some more changes. Besides, there's nothing that says that 4.0 will have the
same API as the WIPs - that's why they're called WIPs!
[snip]
and we should break backward compatibility *another* time???
Yes, it's going to have to happen. Allegro was nice when all you had was an
8 bit display under DOS, but it's time we grow out of it a bit. Some things
really do need fixing, and the only reason why it's not being done is
because of "backwards compatibility".
and *why* more object oriented? remember that allegro should be a C
library and that there are people, like me, that code in plain C.
Um, the issue of object-orientedness is completely orthogonal to the issue
of C vs C++. Sorry.
I was thinking of combining all the BITMAPs and the various SPRITEs under a
single object. draw_sprite vs masked_blit will also need collapsing. voices,
samples and audiostreams might be rearranged. Input can be combined as a
single message system (think SDL). And so on.
3.9.x can be released at the same time as 4.0, in december, where 5.0
can be
released a few years later.
sounds bad.
Well, you waited this long for 4.0, so why not?
[snip]
--
- Robert J Ohannessian
"Microsoft code is probably O(n^20)" (my CS prof)
http://pages.infinit.net/voidstar/