Re: [AD] to prefix or not to prefix (sigh)

[Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On October 28, 2001 03:23 pm, you wrote:
> > > 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".
>
> this is completely not acceptable.
> we *must not* break compatibility 2 times!
> and planning it deliberately is terrible!

Think about version 4 or 5 as being totaly new
libraries.. Because that is really what we are trying to do.

> if we break it we must do 1 single time:
> now or never.

Nope. A 2 step change is much better so people who want or need to
wait untill an 'Official' version is out can use all the nice new features
of the current WIPs (multi platform capabilities) while people who wish
to change to the new prefixed/cleaned API can use 5.0 (or what ever :)

> > > 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.
>
> 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.

Of course it will stay C. No one ever said it wouldn't. I think maybe some one
mentioned object orentedness but the WIPs are built ut of objects, ie: the 
drivers.

> > >>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?
>
> becouse is not good.
>

I doubt it would really take that long to get the cleaned up version out.
Maybe it will If it is decided to add a bunch of functionality...

-- 
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx
http://strangesoft.net