Wine Devs Have Mixed Feelings Over Direct3D In Gallium3D

[mdias]

OpenGL is going to have direct state access in some near-future version (yes, OpenGL has versions!). Actually, it already has an extension that does such a thing.

Why the need for a new extension system? Why OO? The procedural API works perfectly fine.

This is not the kind of thing we want to have as an extension, you want that in the core API. And if you mean this extension then it doesn't seem to address the problem I was talking about. I was talking about being able to easily handle multiple contexts and having calls change the specific context we want to change.

Why we need a new extension system? Because dynamicaly loading function pointers at runtime looks more like a fast workaround hack than a proper solution. Sure, I don't know how else to go about this using plain C, C++ with interfaces once again seems like the proper solution, but maybe I'm just spoiled by easier to use solutions...

[Svartalf]

How did you expect a D3D app/game to not be windows-only if until now D3D only existed on windows?
You seem to believe the only reason we agree D3D1X state tracker is good is to port windows games to linux. That's incorrect, we just want to have a nice (nicer than OGL) API to develop on Linux FOR linux. The added easyness of porting a D3D game is just a nice secondary effect.

As someone that does this as a side business, I can tell you that it doesn't simply the bulk of what takes long and takes effort in porting a game that doesn't plan for portability- it's all the Windowsisms (Case insensitivity in the filenames, VC++ allowing you to do very stupid things like modify the contents of a constant char string, etc...) that largely take time. In the large it's not much effort to move from D3D to OpenGL, especially when you're talking 2.1 and above.

[Svartalf]

Why we need a new extension system? Because dynamicaly loading function pointers at runtime looks more like a fast workaround hack than a proper solution. Sure, I don't know how else to go about this using plain C, C++ with interfaces once again seems like the proper solution, but maybe I'm just spoiled by easier to use solutions...

Easier to use in C++, perhaps Java, D, and a few others. It's NOT "easier" to use in C and others like it. And the "easier" is a bit debatable- it's not as much of a hack as using the framework (and for your info your "easier" solution does the same "loading of function pointers" at runtime- it just hides it from you... )

[pingufunkybeat]

How did you expect a D3D app/game to not be windows-only if until now D3D only existed on windows?

Do you know WHY it only exists on windows?

Why not on Mac, Solaris, Playstation, iPhone, Android, etc.... ?

[mdias]

Easier to use in C++, perhaps Java, D, and a few others. It's NOT "easier" to use in C and others like it. And the "easier" is a bit debatable- it's not as much of a hack as using the framework (and for your info your "easier" solution does the same "loading of function pointers" at runtime- it just hides it from you... )

Yep, I'm aware of that. But it's a more user-friendly way of going about it. It's actually meant for that exact purpose. (I'm talking about interfaces and vtables here).

Do you know WHY it only exists on windows?

Why not on Mac, Solaris, Playstation, iPhone, Android, etc.... ?

No idea to be honest. Maybe because most developers don't have the knowledge/power to create an API that will be widely adopted, and just want to focus on actually producing the end-user software. Just guessing here though, I probably am completely off.

[dalingrin]

(and for your info your "easier" solution does the same "loading of function pointers" at runtime- it just hides it from you... )

Seems to me that "hiding" complexities is the point in having an API in the first place.

[pingufunkybeat]

No idea to be honest. Maybe because most developers don't have the knowledge/power to create an API that will be widely adopted, and just want to focus on actually producing the end-user software. Just guessing here though, I probably am completely off.

Oh, if one independent developer (Luca) can implement the API, you can be sure that IBM, SGI, Nokia, Novell and Apple can, IF THEY WANT TO.

So can Nvidia and ATI and Intel, by adding the D3D interface to their drivers on those platforms.

So none of them wanted to do this. Why?

And more importantly, why should we want it?

[mdias]

Oh, if one independent developer (Luca) can implement the API, you can be sure that IBM, SGI, Nokia, Novell and Apple can, IF THEY WANT TO.

So can Nvidia and ATI and Intel, by adding the D3D interface to their drivers on those platforms.

So none of them wanted to do this. Why?

And more importantly, why should we want it?

We are getting offtopic. I have no idea why we keep using OpenGL instead of some other new modern API, and as I stated before, I believe it's because of the market penetration OpenGL currently has. This matter has nothing to do with D3D being better or worse than OpenGL and has does not contribute to the discussion of weaather we should have it on linux or not.

We would want it because it's a better API than OpenGL. How many times will we have to say this? And I will say this again; I'm not wanting D3D specifically, I want something better than OpenGL. D3D just meets my satisfaction criteria.

[pingufunkybeat]

OpenGL has the market due to its roots and because it is supported by most big players in the 3d industry.

Direct3D has the market because it has been aggressively pushed by Microsoft and is pretty much the only option on Windows systems and the XBox.

There is no third option now, and none on the horizon. One of our two options is controlled by a convicted monopolist, which is why NOBODY (!!!) is supporting it. If a new industry standard emerges, I'll support it too, but I won't be a friend of Direct3D in this lifetime, just like I won't be running Mono stuff, or formatting my drives to use NTFS.

[pingufunkybeat]

Actually, if MS gives D3D over to a standards body with transparent decision-making, and revokes all their patents relating to the technology, I'd accept D3D immediately.

But this is not going to happen in this lifetime. MS wants to control the spec AND the implementation, and they want to use their patents to kill off their competition. This is pretty much the essence of their business. And exactly why nobody is following their "standards".

Do we have .Net on the Mac? Do we have Direct3D on the Mac? No, it's Java and OpenGL. Steve Jobs is not an idiot.