[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], 
>but 
>>
>>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, 
we 
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 
optimizations
that we can take for better HW (i.e. some P3 /Athlon specific instructions), 
they
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 
will 
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.
>
>Rob
>
>




Other related posts: