Graphics Library for D

[Adam Wilson]

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:11:33 -0800, finalpatch <fengli at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:49:58 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> I think if you're willing to use version 2.4 then you get a much more  
>>> permissive license, no? That's how I read  
>>> http://www.antigrain.com/license/index.html anyway...
>>
>> Right, it will just force us to become responsible for maintaining our  
>> own fork of AGG. I'm not sure we should get into that business.
>
> The development of AGG has pretty much stopped after the original author  
> released 2.4.  The 2.5 is no more than just a license change (I remember  
> I have compared the files).
>
> The fork on SourceForge, although considered maintained, it contains  
> only a few small changes. Right now the revision number of that repo is  
> only about 90, and there isn't much happening in the repo over the  
> years. I think if we pick up the 2.4 version, convert it to idiomatic D,  
> it would be very good showcase of D's template capability.
>
> The thing I like about AGG is that it is very portable (I have ported it  
> to embedded micro controllers in a matter of minutes). That is because  
> all it requires is just a pixel buffer and a C++ compiler.  It is also  
> very fast for a high quality software renderer, so if extreme  
> performance is not high on your priority list, AGG is a very good fit  
> for you needs. And also because it's a pure software renderer that works  
> on pixel buffers, it's a good candidate to be included in Phobos.

Even with a full port of 2.4 to D it would still fall under the BSD  
3-Clause license which is not Boost compliant IIRC. So it will never end  
up in Phobos. If I am missing something let me know, because a Phobos  
Software Renderer is a good idea.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator