[openbeos] Re: Source Control

  • From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 21:27:25 -0500

>Hey Axel,
>>>typedef Point<int32> XPoint;
>>>typedef Rect<int32> XRect;
>>>are (or will be) used by game kit surfaces. Haven't ironed out the 
>>>naming convention to use yet - they should prolly be B[something], 
>>Put them in a namespace
>Sadly, namespaces fall into the category of one of my infrequently used 
>C++ features. I'll dig out the 'ol language reference and brush up, and 
>then I'll do as you suggest. Thanks for the feedback. Btw, Axel - you 
>have a cool name. :)

I (personally) don't care for namespaces all that much.
I think that if we assume Be's stand of starting all of our classes with a B, 
should be protected from name collision.

>I have another more general question to cast into the void: what is our 
>minimum supported PC hardware going to be? I ask because, if the 
>minimum is sufficiently speedy, and requires at least 16+ M of VRAM, 
>AGP, etc. then I'll be less inclined to worry about supporting surfaces 
>with less than 24-bits. Ideally, all surfaces would be 32-bits with 
>alpha support, to make things nice and uniform. IMO palettized video 
>modes kinda suck, notwithstanding the fun things you can do using 
>palette animation (which can always be emulated with a fast enough 
>machine if you really want that old skool flava). For the interested, 
>compare OpenPTC and TinyPTC; TinyPTC is a cut-down version of OpenPTC 
>that its users wanted because they didn't need support for anything but 
>32-bit surfaces (also getting rid of keyboard and timer support). Just 
>having a single surface format should ease the learning curve quite a 
>bit, I'd think, as well as simplifying the API. <shrug>

Sigh. Be went so far as to say that nothing pre pentium should be supported.
They made that decision 3 (4?) years ago. It seems reasonable to me to say that
a P2-300 with AGP1 is a good "standard" minimum platform. That boxes less than
that may have sub-standard performance. I think, though, that if there are 
that we can take for better HW (i.e. some P3 /Athlon specific instructions), 
are worth investigating. Remember that we won't ship for several months
(optimistically). By then, 2GHZ will be high end and anything less than 1Ghtz 
be old news.

>Down with cruft, I say. :) Of course, this all relates to the "new" 
>stuff I'm working on. R5 functionality for the GameKit remains the 
>underlying goal.

Other related posts: