Ian, I read the text, and I'll just reiterate that I don't think that your use case is what the greater community would benefit from. We agree that option 3 is the way forward, so I'm happy we have some common ground.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Ian Mallett <i...@geometrian.com> wrote: > 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 >
