On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:32:03 BST Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wasn't too worried about getting a file system interface to it. > I'd supposed that would be tedious (from the size of the language) but > straightforward, similar in principle to draw(2).
A filesystem interface seems to simplify things quite a bit. > Draw's programming interface can, however, present Images, Screens, > Points, Rectangles, Screens, Fonts, and so on as values that can be > created and manipulated like any other. This can be built on top of the above. A /dev/draw shim wouldn't be too hard either. In a sense openGL is at the machine assembly language level while screens, rectangles, fonts etc are at a higher language level. > Obviously there's still an underlying state in the image currently > drawn in an Image, or on a Display. > By contrast, OpenGL has things like this: > > "None of the matrix manipulation commands have an explicit parameter > to control which matrix they affect. Instead, OpenGL maintains a > current matrix mode that determines which matrix type the previously > mentioned matrix manipulation commands actually affects" and "each > matrix type has its own a stack of matrices". (That's followed in a > document I'm looking at by all the ways you can get into trouble with > this, > but how much faster it all is!) And, that state is program global. > > Still, that's what there is! Indeed but GL ES 2 is simpler by virtue of leaving out fixed pipeline functions etc. We may as well make the best use of it when a $35 computer can provide a high performance openGL implementation!
