[ruby-opengl-devel] Re : opinions on rubygl
noteed at gmail.com
Fri Sep 1 06:46:38 EDT 2006
here's my feeling :
just to remind you/us that opengl is a *low* level api. so this
emphases the point about namespace issue : the places where names must
be nice/rubyish are at a higher level that our bindings.
if we want to provide rubyish style, it must be an option for the user
to use it or not.
otoh, (i said this because John mentioned this off-list) we can let
people -- those who already know a bit or a lot about opengl -- use
the rubyish style quite easily by providing a good doc : for example,
a mapping from C style to rubyish style and a clear explanation of the
name conversion scheme we adopted.
finaly, i think that, even in the rubyish version, we have to provide
the user the possibility to require only opengl, without glut. Imagine
a wonderful new rubyforge project where some really cool guys want to
build a ruby-written toolkit targeted to opengl development : they
won't want to include glut but they will do something along the line
require 'opengl' # our opengl bindings, without glut
require 'glx' # some other bindings for xlib programming with opengl
2006/9/1, Robert Krimen <grin.k1tt3n at gmail.com>:
> On 8/31/06, John Gabriele <jmg3000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hm. It also occurs to me that, if we went for the all lowercase names
> > without the gl/glu/glut prefixes, when you do that "include Gl, Glu,
> > Glut", you'd be polluting your namespace quite a bit. For graphics
> > folks, they may already have methods with names like vertex, material,
> > draw_pixels, get, scale, rotate, look_at, enable, and so on. Same goes
> > for the way rubygl turns those constant names into un-prefixed symbols
> > (:alpha, :rgb, etc.). Looks nice at first, but may turn into a
> > nuisance later.
> > Yeah, that could actually turn into a mess, and then folks probably
> > just wouldn't bother with the "include" statement anymore, which
> > kinda' defeats the purpose of trying to make it so you don't have to
> > prefix everything with a module name.
> > Thanks.
> Great point, I didn't think of that, but that would definitely be an issue.
> I've had some struggles myself
> with the ruby namespace, and it wasn't fun.
More information about the ruby-opengl-devel