From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e6050112161638f667e9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:16:06 -0800
From: David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9port libdraw
In-Reply-To: <2ed8faea462c30c5b8326b715bb522b1@terzarima.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3e1162e605011213134327baa2@mail.gmail.com>
	<2ed8faea462c30c5b8326b715bb522b1@terzarima.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2cd1b8fe-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:40:29 0000, Charles Forsyth
<forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> >>not be better for overall portability to move it to SDL?  Someone
> >>ported Inferno to the Linux Framebuffer but I think if they had done
> >>it with SDL we'd have it for Carbon as well now.
> 
> possibly, but having looked at SDL quickly just now,
> i'd say that if the framebuffer man had done that, it would
> have complicated things for me with Inferno: SDL doesn't just implement the graphics
> level, but everything else as well.  it's effectively a plan9ports with
> a different programming interface: it has got its own threads,
> mutexes, events, ..., all of which i suppose get involved at some point
> when invoking the graphics.
> 

Having actually written code and maintained another library on top
libSDL I'd say
that's not quite fair :).  SDL isn't as rigid as you might think.  Yes
sometimes you have
to lock a surface for direct access but you can directly access it.  

That said, it's been years since I've done anything significant with
SDL and this wouldn't
be a bad way to get back into it.  

Also the popular QEMU emulator doesn't seem to have problems with
using SDL for it's
purposes and it works on a lot of platforms too.

Let's see how far I get before we declare defeat.

Dave

>