3 ms·
The article showed the opposite. That there was no need to break existing code.
by justinhj 14y ago
The article showed the opposite. That there was no need to break existing code.
- jbrechtel 14y agoWasn't there? There were a number of functions he didn't port. He ended up with a subset of OpenGL 1.3. Maybe that subset wasn't worth the effort?
- marshray 14y agoThat's just what OpenGL needs right? Yet another incomplete ad-hoc extended subset of OpenGL 1.x functionality lacking documentation, regression and performance tests, a stable and committed team of maintainers, ...
- msbarnett 14y agoIt showed that some existing code with a shim containing a reimplementation of a small subset of OpenGL 1.3 could be made to run acceptably fast on a rather beefy example of 2012's mobile hardware. It certainly did not show that there was no need to exclude those calls back in 2003 when they were originally not included in OpenGL ES.