flame suit on
Why are some people so “anti-bmp”? Is it because the
format is simply “old”? Is it because of “Microsoft”?
Geez. It is just a file format.
What next; outlaw PCX and XPM?
Also, in which situations would someone care that
sdl_image increases by 100K (pure guess) to support
BMP RLE decompression and the extra file format save
options? I can see file size of a shared object
becoming an issue on an embedded system of floppy disk
system. In those cases, wouldn’t the developer have
pruned down all of the libraries by hand anyway?
On another note: I’ve been using “jasper” to do
jpeg2000 images. Jpeg2000s are much smaller than
regular jpegs and they look really nice. “jasper” is
a open source reference implementation.
Anyway, jasper solves the “how do I pass options to
the compressor” problem by placing them into a
delimited string. You write something like this:
jas_image_encode(jp2_image, jas_stream, nFormat,
Maybe the “save” functions in sdl_image or
sdl_saveimage could take their specialized arguments
Also, my personal preference would be to place all
loading and saving functions into a single library.
In the cases where someone wants to statically link,
the linker will skip the unused functions. If the
developer uses a shared object or DLL, then they can
compile a custom DLL if they want it as small as
I think that having lots of small libraries that do
related things is troublesome. SDL_image is an
interface between SDL surfaces and various image
formats. Why split it into many pieces?
Does anyone propose that we have an SDL_image_bmp, an
SDL_image_jpeg, SDL_image_jpeg2000, SDL_image_xpm,
SDL_image_png, etc… ??? I would hope not.=====