A thought on supporting 3D engines
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:33 am
Those with more nous in this area can advise if this is valid, or not, or what degree of validity applies.
Would PureBasic be better off supporting 3D/physics engines etc (such as Ogre/Irrlicht/ODE/Newton) by providing headers and perhaps some helper functions rather than by building a portion of an engine as it now does?
Or the headers, etc, for some important portions of those engines, at least.
So, say, structure definitions, interfaces and helper functions that emulate higher level functions. All written in PureBasic.
I think this might ease up on the pressure of matching 3rd party releases and it might eventually have more of us learning how to interface. With the probability of an increasing number of users capable of providing additional integration or extension of these code bits. Basically monkey see, monkey say "aha!" and monkey do. (Or this monkey, at any rate)
I also think this would make PureBasic more attractive to gamers.
But this is opinion based on minimal knowledge of these things. So what do you think?
Would PureBasic be better off supporting 3D/physics engines etc (such as Ogre/Irrlicht/ODE/Newton) by providing headers and perhaps some helper functions rather than by building a portion of an engine as it now does?
Or the headers, etc, for some important portions of those engines, at least.
So, say, structure definitions, interfaces and helper functions that emulate higher level functions. All written in PureBasic.
I think this might ease up on the pressure of matching 3rd party releases and it might eventually have more of us learning how to interface. With the probability of an increasing number of users capable of providing additional integration or extension of these code bits. Basically monkey see, monkey say "aha!" and monkey do. (Or this monkey, at any rate)
I also think this would make PureBasic more attractive to gamers.
But this is opinion based on minimal knowledge of these things. So what do you think?