4 ms·
I chose the one that seemed closer to vanilla OpenGL, because that's all I really wanted. I don't claim to be an expert, though. What would LWJGL give me that
by prospero 17y ago
I chose the one that seemed closer to vanilla OpenGL, because that's all I really wanted. I don't claim to be an expert, though. What would LWJGL give me that JOGL doesn't?
- itistoday 17y agoI'm not an expert either, but a while back I spent over a year looking into the whole Java OpenGL gaming thing. I started out working with the Xith3D library and made some contributions to it, but soon it became painfully clear that the best 3D library for Java was jMonkeyEngine, and it used lwjgl. Looking further into it I think I found that JOGL seemed to be a somewhat abandoned project (sortof like Java3D), and that the real action was with LWJGL/jMonkeyEngine. Both had a far larger and more active community, and LWJGL supported more OpenGL features, and LWJGL may have been faster than JOGL too, although again, you're bringing up a fairly old memories, so I can't say they're perfectly accurate, I may in fact be spewing nonsense. I'd say take a look at both and compare.
- prospero 17y agoThanks for the suggestion, I'll look into it further. The code that binds Penumbra to JOGL is pretty small, so it would be easy to swap something else in if it seems clearly superior.
- itistoday 17y agoGreat! Thanks for considering it, and if it's that easy then Penumbra would be even more appealing for supporting both. I'm hoping to get back into the Java world through Clojure, so I'm very happy to see that a project like Penumbra is there!
- pmjordan 17y agoFrom what I can tell, JOGL is preferable in at least one situation: Applets. Since the code is signed by Sun, it's a lot less hassle to run it in a browser than if you had to get hold of signatures yourself. Might be something worth bearing in mind.