I’m willing to trade machines… just think, it’ll keep you honest with
code bloat issues, and you wont have to take my word for it that it
works
I’ve done all my SDL development on an 100MHz Pentium and on even slower
obsolete Sparcs. Now I do most of it on an 143 MHz UltraSparc. This is
good enough for just about everything (or I’m doing something wrong),
except that I can’t run OpenGL very well.
I can say that I’m very grateful that SDL isn’t written in C++.
But I also think that it can scale down well, if you are careful both in
the library implementation, and in using the existing features well.
Sometimes we even manage to shave off some overhead (the new clipping, and
the simplification of the blit mapping). We’ve been discussing shared
formats/palettes, which is another step in making things leaner and
faster.
Remember that if you keep SDL working on slow boxes, it will also increase
the chances that it runs well on new but small boxes — consoles, PDAs,
mobile phones, digital cameras, wearables, in short everywhere you want a
good Maelstrom once in a while 
except that I can’t run OpenGL very well.
yeah I know the feeling… even with this fangled vesa card thing (isa
is so last decade) I don’t recall ever having seen a phong highlighted
texture mapped semi transparent polygon…
But I also think that it can scale down well, if you are careful both in
the library implementation, and in using the existing features well.
Sometimes we even manage to shave off some overhead (the new clipping, and
the simplification of the blit mapping). We’ve been discussing shared
formats/palettes, which is another step in making things leaner and
faster.
Yep, its wonderful. I’m very impressed with all the hard work that
everyone whos contributed has put in.
Remember that if you keep SDL working on slow boxes, it will also increase
the chances that it runs well on new but small boxes — consoles, PDAs,
mobile phones, digital cameras, wearables, in short everywhere you want a
good Maelstrom once in a while
mm, and Maelstrom work perfectly excellently on my machine… though
you’d think it should since DOOM (the orginal, haven’t tried any of
these new fangled ports) runs well enough… thats my benchmark game =)
I should see how the SDL version compares…
“Maelstrom everywhere” should be the offical slogan.
Julian.
Mattias Engdeg?rd wrote:
I can say that I’m very grateful that SDL isn’t written in C++.
Quadra is entirely done in C++ and was developed on a 486-class machine
(and plays nicely too!). It only starts sputtering when you’re going
into non-PseudoColor visuals (palette emulation can be slow on
full-screen fades!)…
So what about C++ again? ;-)–
“We make rope.” – Rob Gingell on Sun Microsystem’s new virtual memory.
I can say that I’m very grateful that SDL isn’t written in C++.
Quadra is entirely done in C++ and was developed on a 486-class machine
(and plays nicely too!). It only starts sputtering when you’re going
into non-PseudoColor visuals (palette emulation can be slow on
full-screen fades!)…
Yet another reason why indexed colour rocks (though the new DirectColor
gamma code helps, at least for fading)
So what about C++ again? 
For the purposes of this discussion (computer speed): It takes about
twice as long to compile as the equivalent C code (speaking from experience).
I have lots of other issues with C++ but this is not the forum for
language wars[1]—
[1] unless Norwegian trolls in an act of desperation start bribing Sam
(with oil rigs and whale flesh) to convert SDL to C++; that would
change the rules of engagement
Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
Mattias Engdeg?rd wrote:
I can say that I’m very grateful that SDL isn’t written in C++.
Quadra is entirely done in C++ and was developed on a 486-class machine
(and plays nicely too!). It only starts sputtering when you’re going
into non-PseudoColor visuals (palette emulation can be slow on
full-screen fades!)…
So what about C++ again?
It just gives you more rope to hang yourself with. C++ can be a great
tool for building large programs, but you can also do some really dumb
things with it. It doesn’t help that every C++ compiler seems to have a
different idea of what the standard is and how it should be implemented
-John
Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
So what about C++ again?
It just gives you more rope to hang yourself with. C++ can be a great
tool for building large programs, but you can also do some really dumb
things with it. It doesn’t help that every C++ compiler seems to have a
different idea of what the standard is and how it should be implemented
Has anyone tried to look at the C++ standard? The thing is at least three
times larger than the C standard. It is, in my opinion anyway, much too
complicated to be useful. Even Bjarne Strostrup acknowledges that inside
C++ there’s a small, clean language struggling to get out. And some
people would say, yes, that language is Java :-)On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, John R. Hall wrote:
–
Rafael R. Sevilla <@Rafael_R_Sevilla> +63 (2) 4342217
ICSM-F Development Team, UP Diliman +63 (917) 4458925
PGP Key ID: 0x1A0B09BB