Functions to deprecate. GL 4.2

ARB wanted a streamlined API that resulted in removing several invaluable features such as: wide line drawing, line/polygon stippling, display lists…etc.

Why epic fail? It’s because they introduced compatibility profile, which means old functionality is in need :wink:

So it’s clear that their main goal was to “streamline” rather than improve the API.

Improve drivers quality? Give me a break, with compatibility profile added?

Epic fail!

Good luck!

I wonder what would have happened if they split the compatibility & core profile completely, separate headers and libraries. Programmers that want to migrate will just need to change headers and link into different libraries and also remove deprecated code which will show up as errors since it’s not in the new headers. They would still have to deprecate features after that but at least they starting on a clean slate. This would have been a good choice in the long run.

Open too opinions?

separate headers and libraries

Headers are the responsibility of the user. Most OpenGL extension loaders generate their own headers anyway, so it wouldn’t help. And there would be no point in having separate libraries, since they’d just be linking to the same code either way.

Yes forgot :frowning:

Ok what if say GLEW decided to allow you to define GLEW_CORE_ONLY and it would block of any declaration of non core features in the headers, by this I mean the compiler will not allow you to compile a program using deprecated features because it will think they do not exist. That would make moving over to core allot easier.

Isn’t that what GL3W does?
http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Extension_Loading_Library

Why do you need lines with bigger width?

And why can not you implement missing features as separate libraries on top of core?

If Apple implement only core 3.2, I’ll be against! It should be 4.1 core only! :wink:

Really, if apple do this move, dev will start to create core-only apps, and that will ease pressure on others also.

And I do not get idea that they can not start with core, but must go from 2.1 to compatibility. There are huge benefits from implementing only core profile.

The only problem with core profile is that, Intell do not have a single gpu capable of doing OGL 3.2.

Why do you need lines with bigger width?

To render an object with thicker polygon edges/wireframe. :wink:

And why can not you implement missing features as separate libraries on top of core?

No time. That’s why we use a graphics library, not a driver :slight_smile:

The only problem with core profile is that, Intell do not have a single gpu capable of doing OGL 3.2.

Or even 2.1 :wink: