6 ms·

Raylib's author was very happy to announce that you can compile an entire raylib program with no dependencies other than, say, being a win32 app https://x.com/r

Raylib's author was very happy to announce that you can compile an entire raylib program with no dependencies other than, say, being a win32 app https://x.com/raysan5/status/1980322289527976202 https://x.com/raysan5/status/1980322289527976202

smlacy 1y ago
but ... why?
- foota 1y ago
  As someone who was once a child trying to figure out how to compile and link things to use SDL, I think there's some educational value in letting people make games without having to dive deep into how to use C++ toolchains.
  - SJC_Hacker 1y ago
    If you want to do that, skip C++ entirely and just use Javascript or Python. You can get shiny things really quickly.
    - irilesscent 1y ago
      I think there's still value in learning the C++ language and making a game or a demo is quite rewarding although raylib does have bindings for basically every conceivable language.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        Agreed, especially since it is the main language in the games industry, however that doesn't mean it should be the very first experience.
  - HelloNurse 1y ago
    I'd make the opposite argument about educational value. If you learn to compile libraries and programs you have, so to speak, passed an exam: you are ready to "make games" with confidence because you know what you are doing well enough to have no fear of tool complications. What should be minimized is the accidental complication of compiling libraries and programs, for example convoluted build systems and C++ modules.
    - krapp 1y ago
      If you learn to compile libraries and programs, you just learn how to compile libraries and programs. That doesn't teach you anything about how to "make games." It doesn't even make game development significantly easier. I think the real answer to educating people about making games without the complications of low level programming would be using a framework like Godot or languages like Python or Lua.
      - HelloNurse 1y ago
        Of course technical concerns aren't directly relevant to making games, but they are still necessary. Productive development means overcoming technical hurdles, not only domain specific challenges. What if you cannot adopt some library that would do something very useful because you lack the skill integrate or replace CMake or Bazel or Autoconf? Unnecessary technical constraints impact game quality. What if due to insufficient automation the time between tests after making a very small change is 10 minutes rather than 10 seconds? Reduced productivity impacts game quality.
        sarchertech 1y ago
        Very useful skills to have. But they don’t need to be learned during the very first lesson on the very first day unless you are trying to filter people out for some reason.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  The mantra for the library is "raylib is a simple and easy-to-use library to enjoy videogames programming." It's for hobbyist, learners, tinkerers, or just those that want to enjoy minimalistic graphics programming without having to deal with interfacing with modern machines yourself. The default Windows installer bundles the compiler and a text editor to make poking at C to get graphics on the screen (accelerated or not) a 1 step process. Raylib is also extremely cross platform, has bindings in about every language, and has extra (also header only, 0 dependency) optional libraries for many adjacent things like audio or text rendering. When I first started to learn C/C++ in the 2000s I spent more time fighting the IDE/Windows/GCC or getting SDL/SFML to compile than I did actually playing with code - and then it all fell apart when I tried to get it working on both Linux and Windows so I said fuck it and ignored that kind of programming for many years. Raylib is about going the opposite direction - start poking at C code (or whatever binding) and having it break and worry about the environment later when you're ready for something else.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    I never ever bothered to compile SDL/SFML from source, what is so hard dumping the binaries into a folder, set the include paths for the compiler and linker? Although I may imagine newbies may face some challenges dealing with compiler flags.
    - flohofwoe 1y ago
      > what is so hard dumping the binaries into a folder, set the include paths for the compiler and linker? The problems already start with getting the precompiled libraries from a trusted source. As far as I'm aware the SDL project doesn't host binaries for instance.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        Like these? https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/releases/tag/release-3.2.24 https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/releases/tag/release-3.2.2...
- abnercoimbre 1y ago
  I mean this with all the appropriate venom we can muster: this attitude is why software quality is nonexistent.
- rererereferred 1y ago
  Why not? The original Doom didn't use a GPU renderer. It should be possible to do simple 3d stuff in today's computers without it.
  - 1313ed01 1y ago
    Even Quake launched with software rendering. Not sure if the first release even had support for any hardware acceleration?
    - flohofwoe 1y ago
      IIRC GLQuake was more like an experiment, only Quake II had proper GL support from the start.
  - sfn42 1y ago
    The original doom wasn't even proper 3d. It was a sort of 2,5d. And sure you can do 3d rendering on modern CPUs. It's just better on GPUs. Like thousands of times better.
    - Flamingoat 1y ago
      The main limitation of the engine is you couldn't have room over room. There is definitely three dimensions when playing the game.
    - alxmdev 11mo ago
      Someone always points out how Doom wasn't "real 3D" like it's some sort of gotcha. Games are smoke and mirrors, it's all a 2D grid of pixels at the end.
      - sfn42 11mo ago
        Well yeah, a 2d grid of pixels also describes the result of rendering a 2d game. It matters how you arrive at that 2d grid of pixels, that's why you can't render Crysis on just a CPU. At least not in real time.
- stodor89 1y ago
  Because GPU APIs are a nightmare clustertruck.
  - mungaihaha 1y ago
    1000x less performance is a bigger clusterfuck
    - rootnod3 1y ago
      It's not meant for "let's make the next AAA game". It's for "Hey, I wanna try a fun idea".
    - stodor89 11mo ago
      It's slower indeed, but it's easier to write and debug, more portable, and gives you total control over the render pipeline. It's good for experimentation and learning, and would still be trivial to compile and run 20 or 50 years from now. And with how obscenely fast modern CPUs are, it might even be fast-enough for a simple 3D game.
- kragen 1y ago
  This site is for hackers, which basically means people who like to do things like this. If you can't understand why someone would be interested in this, probably you should remain silent and try to understand hackers rather than commenting.
- aj_hackman 1y ago
  As someone working on a game engine with a multithreaded SSE/NEON implementation of ~GL 1.3 under the hood, this is rad for many reasons other than portability or compatibility. You get full access to every pixel and vertex on the screen at any point in the rendering pipeline. This allows for any number of cool (also likely multithreaded) postprocessing effects that you don't have to shoehorn through a brittle, possibly single-platform shading language and API.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
334f905d22bc19 1y ago
Oh that sounds really interesting. I was searching for something like that to render something on a fun-hacky-ledscreen with an embedded processor. All things I found weren't satisfying. But if I understand that correctly, I should be able to just compile this and then software render stuff? For my tiny 192x128 pixels this should be fast enough on any kinda system. Time for fun animations
pmarin 1y ago
Win32 has already a pretty good opengl 1.2 software renderer.

smlacy 1y ago

but ... why?

foota 1y ago
As someone who was once a child trying to figure out how to compile and link things to use SDL, I think there's some educational value in letting people make games without having to dive deep into how to use C++ toolchains.
- SJC_Hacker 1y ago
  If you want to do that, skip C++ entirely and just use Javascript or Python. You can get shiny things really quickly.
  - irilesscent 1y ago
    I think there's still value in learning the C++ language and making a game or a demo is quite rewarding although raylib does have bindings for basically every conceivable language.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Agreed, especially since it is the main language in the games industry, however that doesn't mean it should be the very first experience.
- HelloNurse 1y ago
  I'd make the opposite argument about educational value. If you learn to compile libraries and programs you have, so to speak, passed an exam: you are ready to "make games" with confidence because you know what you are doing well enough to have no fear of tool complications. What should be minimized is the accidental complication of compiling libraries and programs, for example convoluted build systems and C++ modules.
  - krapp 1y ago
    If you learn to compile libraries and programs, you just learn how to compile libraries and programs. That doesn't teach you anything about how to "make games." It doesn't even make game development significantly easier. I think the real answer to educating people about making games without the complications of low level programming would be using a framework like Godot or languages like Python or Lua.
    - HelloNurse 1y ago
      Of course technical concerns aren't directly relevant to making games, but they are still necessary. Productive development means overcoming technical hurdles, not only domain specific challenges. What if you cannot adopt some library that would do something very useful because you lack the skill integrate or replace CMake or Bazel or Autoconf? Unnecessary technical constraints impact game quality. What if due to insufficient automation the time between tests after making a very small change is 10 minutes rather than 10 seconds? Reduced productivity impacts game quality.
      - sarchertech 1y ago
        Very useful skills to have. But they don’t need to be learned during the very first lesson on the very first day unless you are trying to filter people out for some reason.
zamadatix 1y ago
The mantra for the library is "raylib is a simple and easy-to-use library to enjoy videogames programming." It's for hobbyist, learners, tinkerers, or just those that want to enjoy minimalistic graphics programming without having to deal with interfacing with modern machines yourself. The default Windows installer bundles the compiler and a text editor to make poking at C to get graphics on the screen (accelerated or not) a 1 step process. Raylib is also extremely cross platform, has bindings in about every language, and has extra (also header only, 0 dependency) optional libraries for many adjacent things like audio or text rendering. When I first started to learn C/C++ in the 2000s I spent more time fighting the IDE/Windows/GCC or getting SDL/SFML to compile than I did actually playing with code - and then it all fell apart when I tried to get it working on both Linux and Windows so I said fuck it and ignored that kind of programming for many years. Raylib is about going the opposite direction - start poking at C code (or whatever binding) and having it break and worry about the environment later when you're ready for something else.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  I never ever bothered to compile SDL/SFML from source, what is so hard dumping the binaries into a folder, set the include paths for the compiler and linker? Although I may imagine newbies may face some challenges dealing with compiler flags.
  - flohofwoe 1y ago
    > what is so hard dumping the binaries into a folder, set the include paths for the compiler and linker? The problems already start with getting the precompiled libraries from a trusted source. As far as I'm aware the SDL project doesn't host binaries for instance.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Like these? https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/releases/tag/release-3.2.24 https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/releases/tag/release-3.2.2...
abnercoimbre 1y ago
I mean this with all the appropriate venom we can muster: this attitude is why software quality is nonexistent.
rererereferred 1y ago
Why not? The original Doom didn't use a GPU renderer. It should be possible to do simple 3d stuff in today's computers without it.
- 1313ed01 1y ago
  Even Quake launched with software rendering. Not sure if the first release even had support for any hardware acceleration?
  - flohofwoe 1y ago
    IIRC GLQuake was more like an experiment, only Quake II had proper GL support from the start.
- sfn42 1y ago
  The original doom wasn't even proper 3d. It was a sort of 2,5d. And sure you can do 3d rendering on modern CPUs. It's just better on GPUs. Like thousands of times better.
  - Flamingoat 1y ago
    The main limitation of the engine is you couldn't have room over room. There is definitely three dimensions when playing the game.
  - alxmdev 11mo ago
    Someone always points out how Doom wasn't "real 3D" like it's some sort of gotcha. Games are smoke and mirrors, it's all a 2D grid of pixels at the end.
    - sfn42 11mo ago
      Well yeah, a 2d grid of pixels also describes the result of rendering a 2d game. It matters how you arrive at that 2d grid of pixels, that's why you can't render Crysis on just a CPU. At least not in real time.
stodor89 1y ago
Because GPU APIs are a nightmare clustertruck.
- mungaihaha 1y ago
  1000x less performance is a bigger clusterfuck
  - rootnod3 1y ago
    It's not meant for "let's make the next AAA game". It's for "Hey, I wanna try a fun idea".
  - stodor89 11mo ago
    It's slower indeed, but it's easier to write and debug, more portable, and gives you total control over the render pipeline. It's good for experimentation and learning, and would still be trivial to compile and run 20 or 50 years from now. And with how obscenely fast modern CPUs are, it might even be fast-enough for a simple 3D game.
kragen 1y ago
This site is for hackers, which basically means people who like to do things like this. If you can't understand why someone would be interested in this, probably you should remain silent and try to understand hackers rather than commenting.
aj_hackman 1y ago
As someone working on a game engine with a multithreaded SSE/NEON implementation of ~GL 1.3 under the hood, this is rad for many reasons other than portability or compatibility. You get full access to every pixel and vertex on the screen at any point in the rendering pipeline. This allows for any number of cool (also likely multithreaded) postprocessing effects that you don't have to shoehorn through a brittle, possibly single-platform shading language and API.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

334f905d22bc19 1y ago

Oh that sounds really interesting. I was searching for something like that to render something on a fun-hacky-ledscreen with an embedded processor. All things I found weren't satisfying. But if I understand that correctly, I should be able to just compile this and then software render stuff? For my tiny 192x128 pixels this should be fast enough on any kinda system. Time for fun animations

pmarin 1y ago

Win32 has already a pretty good opengl 1.2 software renderer.