SDL 1.x or SDL 2.x?

Pick one.

>>40
I'm not sure if that's supposed to be something snarky or not. But anyway, I won't. Changing X11 for Wayland is like changing from KDE to Gnome. It's the same skyscraper built on a sand dune, but with a different decoration. If something wants to replace X11, then it should at least be a good replacement, not a just a slight improvement to an internal architecture that is already shit. If you want to have break compatibility, break it hard and make it worth it.

>>38
OpenAL is bloated poison too.

>>41
That's what I've been saying all along. Of course the Lennart-types think I'm insane and shout me down.

I want something at least resembling Plan 9's /dev/draw and rio, not Xorg-nextgen.

>>41
I don't think you understand what Wayland is. Wayland is a display server protocol designed from scratch, Wayland is designed to be lightweight and flexible while dropping the X11 cruft of the past. The Wayland protocol doesn't include any support for networking, its purpose is to connect programs to your computer graphics system. You need to extend Wayland to include network support like Wayland+VNC or Wayland+X11 or Wayland+RDP.

While it's true that Wayland/Weston is written by the same team who maintains X.org, this team is actually the best team to know about how developers are actually using X11 today to draw graphics and where X11 graphics is obsolete in today's context. The graphical technology that was an extension of X11 is now easy to use and extend with the Wayland protocol.

>>42
What, is there a better open way to do multichannel 3d sound simulation? Are you simplying complaining that OpenAL is overengineered for the case of simple two channel sound playback?

Don't need to use X11 if you're gonna write a fullscreen graphics program on Linux, just bypass that shit and use DRM to write to the framebuffer directly.
And it's not even that much code, it's comparable to setting up a window in xlib or xcb.

>>44
I know what it is. You say that it was designed from scratch, but it isn't. It is only written from scratch. The X11 taint is still there. I'm not even against networking (even though it is stupid).

The Unix philosophy is not a good idea for things like this. All it does is allow tons of idiotic NIH libraries to pop up. You don't have to install 500MB of libraries to get a Hello World dialog on windows. It needs a tight integration with the OS. 90% of the features need to be gone. Composition and window management and all the other shit should be inseparable. No switching out components just for the fuck of it. No extra libraries to put widgets on the screen. Desktop managers should just be themes and a menu. It sure would save a dick load of time, effort, and memory to not have to have 100 libraries (then KDE and Gnome libs on top of that) installed just because it's a complete pain in to make a window without them.

But, if there was any interest in something like that, it would probably just merge X11 and GTK+ and KDE or some other sort of almost-incompatible unholy abomination of hacked together shitware long enough to get it to just barely work. Instead of getting anything sane, you'd end up with the Systemd of GUIs. The open source community is absolutely terrible at things like this. Gnome can't even make a resource monitor that doesn't eat tens of megabytes just to display a list box.

>>47
You're talking about the size of libraries when a base Windows install is 20+ gigabytes. It's nice to have the ability to opt out of unnecessary features. And hand-holding distros will package all of that for you by default.

GDI is superior.

>>47
This, I wish the circlejerking *nix crowd would just adopt the Win32 API.

>>48
My Windows directory is currently 939MB and I have another 1.1GB in Program Files.

>>47

You don't have to install 500MB of libraries to get a Hello World dialog on windows.

Tiny Core Linux can boot you into a functional X11 desktop in ~15MB of installed size.

90% of the features need to be gone.

And you can easily remove them, unlike on Windows.

>>49
Win32 is a steaming pile and always has been. Even within Microsoft, only the Windows teams have ever been enamored of it. The original NT team was famous in their distaste for it, in fact.

>>49
No, the Brotherhood of NOD is superior.

I wish the circlejerking *nix crowd would just adopt the Win32 API.

Now I feel like an idiot for taking cudder seriously.

SHALOM!

>>47

The Unix philosophy is not a good idea for things like this

/dev/draw
/dev/audio
/dev/mouse
/dev/kbd

>>49

Real time audio synthesis, midi and OpenGL in Praxis for the windows build come courtesy of the Win32 API. On Linux, audio is through SDL, midi is through RtMidi and a midi server like Timidity, and OpenGL is through Mesa. The fact that the Win32 API offers a "one-stop-shop" for basic, functional audio and OpenGL that is guaranteed to exist on any windows machine makes me happy and makes things much easier. Using the Win32 API for a windows program is so rock solid and everlasting, its like you are writing for a games console. Say what you want about it, but the fact that the Win32 API hasn't fundamentally changed since Win95 and continues to be useful makes it extremely valuable. It is a truly eternal, dependable API, and the main reason as a programmer I continue to use windows sometimes.