On Fri, 15 May 2015 at 17:52 Ben Albrecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am curious, why not have some high level classes for drawn common > shapes, like rectangles, circles, triangles, etc. built on top of > pyglet.gl? Is there some technical barrier preventing this? > > I imagine many people are deterred from Pyglet when they realize they will > have to write some nasty looking opengl calls to draw some simple shapes. > At least this is a common comparison I notice when people compare Pygame > vs. Pyglet. > I think that PyGame vs pyglet comparisons are generally misguided - the two fulfill very different roles: - PyGame is intended to be a full-featured toolkit for developing software-rendered 2D games (which happens to have some support for OpenGL). - pyglet is designed to provide much lower-level access to a variety of multimedia libraries (of which OpenGL is the most widely used). Utilities to draw squares and circles make a lot of sense when you are blitting pixels to a framebuffer every frame. They make less sense when you are using a retained graphics API (though there is nothing stopping you from writing such classes, as an addon library). Plus, it's worth considering how many games are actually made by drawing squares and circles. My contention would be that apart from Pong, there aren't a whole lot of examples. And you can always do that by drawing your squares and circles in an image editor, and using pyglet's Sprite class... - Tristam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
