Hi, On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:55 PM, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are few people on this mailing list which have a lot of knowledge > about GPU rendering, and Ian is definitely one of them. I think he was > genuinely trying to be helpful. His claim isn't even controversial - GPU, > ASIC, and CPU rendering all have different trade offs. As do game libraries > like pygame. > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Leif Theden <leif.the...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ian, you are really trying to make the case that a software renderer > making simple shapes around the on the screen is better than a GPU? Why > then are basically all games these days using a GPU? Please, don't answer > it, because I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, and don't want to risk > derailing the tread with this...honestly quite ludicrous assertion you've > made. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and the pudding is > certainly not software rendering anything. > Thanks René! And to clarify: (1) Leif, the answers to your objections are in that wall of text, which is of course why I wrote it. (2) I do not troll. (3) You're right that if hardware acceleration is off the table, then this conversation is orthogonal here. But, it's unclear to me if it *is* off the table. At the risk of over-simplification, but in the interest of moving the conversation forward, let's try to put the current issues in context. As I understand it, the proposals vis-à-vis SDL2 are: 1: Do nothing 2: (Progressively) integrate SDL2 patch into existing pygame with goal of eventual SDL1/SDL2 compile option (René and Lenard OP, many detailed variations) 3: Transition (as above or rewrite) to use SDL2 only (various) . . . any of which implemented with the following options, which are not necessarily mutually incompatible: A: Share/relicense pygame_sdl2 B: Expose a different API designed for performance (for graphics especially) C: Base largely on hardware acceleration for performance D: Expose new SDL2 features in the pygame API . . . and under the following serious constraint, which I think is accurate: On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Leif Theden <leif.the...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let's be realistic, there are very few people who have the will or ability > to deal with the pygame code base > > I'll keep my opinion short: personally, I'm okay with any proposal, 1, 2, or 3, though I'd pick 3 over 2, despite being a bit dangerous. At the same time, I think option B implies we want to leave our niche (which I'm vaguely against) and option C is implausible (again, for our niche). Saving work is preferable, but otherwise I don't know enough to say anything about A. I support D. Ian
