Re: [AD] generic game loop

[Jon Rafkind <workmin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I like having 2 versions, one core and one with all the add-ons with all 
the extras in there. I bet the bigger version would be more popular 
since users would end up wanting that stuff anyway.

My idea was prompted while pondering the differences between SDL and 
Allegro. Having recently used SDL I noticed that SDL and Allegro do 
almost the same *exact thing but Allegro has many more convienence 
functions.  Then again, SDL has exactly the above situation of a core 
library with only basic functionality and addon libraries that extend it 
so its useable by mere mortals.

I generally abstract away the underlying libraries from the rest of my 
code with helper classes so I can swap Allegro for SDL  in a heartbeat.. 
The only thing keeping me with Allegro is the incredibly rich set of 
functions it comes with. I think a richer API would make people happier 
and Allegro more popular. In fact, I would go as far to say that the 2nd 
bigger Allegro version should contain as many addons as possible.

*: SDL has cdrom functions. ooo allegro needs that!

> >    
>
> This fits into the current discussion what should be in Allegro and what
> not. My idea is, something like this really should be there, but why not
> make it an addon? What could be an addon, should be an addon. The core
> Allegro should be just the base API (so yes, I would make Allegro like
> SDL - with the difference that we would distribute it together with
> useful addons, so (newbie) users never would know :) My idea with the 2
> distributions I just mentioned in the thread below would put such a
> game-loop addon in the 2nd, the "big", distribution of Allegro :)
>
>