Seriously, he (as did you) speaks about things
that have little-to-nothing to do with the
concrete subject. Originally I meant that the
standard model offers reacher choice to the
programmer but not what exactly the programmer should choose or do. Then you stareted giving
lesons about how we must write and how we mustn’t
write software - THAT is off-topic. Do you see
You’re arguing that handles are a bad idea (in general). I’m arguing that they are good.
Your arguments against handles and for numbers use bad programming techniques. Indeed, the best argument for handles is that they encourage good programming. As such, in order to argue for them, I must be able to discuss what is and is not good programming. Indeed, this argument also needs to get into why it is or is not good programming. If it is “off topic” to use these arguments, then I don’t have a case.
Put it this way. You say that the texture object mechanism allows for options. If you’re arguing for a mechanism because it allows for options, you are implicitly arguing that these options are both valid and benificial. Ergo, I should get to argue that these options are superfluous and/or promote bad programming. Otherwise, I could say that ripping out the object mechanism, forcing the user to go back to the days of 1.0, gives the user “options” too. Obviously, these are bad options, and you can make a case for it. As such, I get to make a case for why these options that you want are bad. And Dirk gets to make the case as to why they are good.
Otherwise, you are winning the argument because I don’t get to give my side of the case.
I would suggest
to the OpenGL vendors not to mix both models
but to keep the old one until OpenGL 2.0 and
then switch at once for all objects.
This is getting off-topic, but it bears noting. Apparently, GL 2.0 is not going to be a revision of the API, but instead the same kinds of difference between GL 1.4 and 1.5. Adding some things to the core, promoting ARB extensions, etc. So the handle vs. texture object stuff will be around for a while.
About the superbuffers: they are emerging to be
so cumbersome and heavy to work with that I would
suggest to the OpenGL vendors to chuck them up
altogether and to start all over.
I agree, except for the starting over part (abondon it. We’re getting what we need through this path). However, I doubt ATi will agree. It all depends on what happened in the March ARB meeting, but the notes aren’t up yet.