If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
1–10 of 225 posts
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#2If you use green text on a black background you are an idiot.
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#3OpenGL ES is not designed to be OpenGL.
It has a different set of constraints. The point is to prune back the API for small devices - NOT - to make make migration of legacy code simple.
For sure it would be nice if it came with a client side library to emulate OpenGL to assist in migration where people dont care about foot print size or perf.
JWZ is a very smart guy and I respect his opinion, but he is coming from a narrow viewpoint and not considering the wider implications.
In my experience, backwards compatible APIs and languages are what makes development a pain going forward. This is not to say backwards compatibility should not be provided in some form - but ejecting it from the core is a sane decision.
Otherwise APIs and languages expand at an unfathomable rate. Imagine if every API or language you ever used had features both added and removed over time to make it a better language. Javascript without the bad parts for example.
An incremental only approach to design is non-design in my view.
Evolution both promotes and retires ideas.
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#4Speaking of which, is OpenGL ES 3.0 supposed to launch this year?
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#5Much respect to JWZ, but I don't agree here. I am not even sure what to say, except that he is wrong, so I will just leave it there. And no, I was not involved in anyway with GL ES specification.
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#6OpenGL ES is not designed to be OpenGL. It has a different set of constraints. The point is to prune back the API for small devices - NOT - to make make migration of legacy code simple. For sure it would be nice if it came with a client side library to emulate OpenGL to assist in migration where people dont care about foot print size or perf. JWZ is a very smart guy and I respect his opinion, but he is coming from a…
I'm not knowledgeable about OpenGL at all, but how hard would it be to write a compatibility layer so older apps continue to work? It could be released as a third party shim.
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#7OpenGL ES is not designed to be OpenGL. It has a different set of constraints. The point is to prune back the API for small devices - NOT - to make make migration of legacy code simple. For sure it would be nice if it came with a client side library to emulate OpenGL to assist in migration where people dont care about foot print size or perf. JWZ is a very smart guy and I respect his opinion, but he is coming from a…
I'm not knowledgeable about OpenGL at all, but how hard would it be to write a compatibility layer so older apps continue to work? It could be released as a third party shim.
Isn't that precisely what he did here? (note, I know nothing about nothing when it comes to graphics/OpenGL stuff)
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not knowledgeable about OpenGL at all, but how hard would it be to write a compatibility layer so older apps continue to work? It could be released as a third party shim.
Isn't that precisely what he did here? (note, I know nothing about nothing when it comes to graphics/OpenGL stuff)
It sounds like it. He could just package it up a bit better, release it and render this whole discussion moot.
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#9People that don't study history are doomed to repeat it, or something like that. There's pretty much no reason to drop the old API calls, if you don't want it clogging stuff up, fine, make a separate library you have to throw a flag for or something.
Favorite quote: "If there are old features that you would like to discourage the use of, then you mark them as obsolete -- but you do not remove them because thou shalt not break working code.
If you don't agree with that, then please, get out of the software industry right now. Find another line of work. Please. "
Re: If you were involved in the OpenGL ES specification, you are an idiot
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not knowledgeable about OpenGL at all, but how hard would it be to write a compatibility layer so older apps continue to work? It could be released as a third party shim.
Isn't that precisely what he did here? (note, I know nothing about nothing when it comes to graphics/OpenGL stuff)
I believe the authors original point is why not provide the shim support as part of OpenGL ES in the first place? Stick a big red sticker on it saying here be dragons, but it's obviously not an impossible task.
The funny thing is, his shim is actually useful for speeding up code (in theory, this may already be done) on normal OpenGL. (For anything using these interfaces)