On Feb 16, 6:20 pm, Philippe <[email protected]> wrote: > thank you. > > I have a more general question. > I started checking pyglet few days ago. There are many things I like. > But it seems that we have to use stuff on the GL layer very often. 2 > questions over 3 ended with solution based on import pyglet.gl.* > > is it a design choice, "using pyglet, we have to dive in pyglet.gl.* > often". > or is it because pyglet is still quite young, and the API will cover > more in the future. so we can manipulate python object, without openGL > knowledge.
I'd rather see pyglet do less then more. The question you're asking is one of application framework/engine/scene graph. I do not perceive it as pyglets job to provide a fully featured game engine/scene graph library. The trouble with this kind of abstractions is that they're a dime a dozen, everybody wants a different one, and if you bog pyglets codebase down with a huge fixed concept like this, the overal usability for everybody will be decreased in favor of those minorities who happen to be in ideological agreement to the flavour of API/ Abstractions chosen. I think the need for more specific abstractions would be much better served in libraries that depend on pyglet, such as for instance lepton, simplui, gletools, halogen etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
