Progress on Adam Wilson's Graphics API?

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 31/05/2015 9:56 a.m., ketmar wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 02:35:22 +1200, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>
>> Personally I think it is more reasonable to assume certain libraries
>> will be installed. Such as for Windows user32 and GDI.
>> Where by there is no real alternatives. Like X11 for *nix.
>> In other words, system libraries are fine to use. As you have no real
>> choice in the matter.
>
> while you are right about windows GDI, with GNU/Linux you can find, for
> example, wayland or DirectFB setup without X11 emulation layer at all. so
> assuming that X11 is always there is not exactly right.

In most cases it is and will be for a while yet.
Although you are right in saying it should also support others.

>> Now SDL on the other hand, you cannot assume will be installed or
>> available. Unless you want to go bundling that or using static
>> libraries. Still defeats the purpose of expanding D's library base.
>
> installing wide-known libraries is very easy on most modern OSes. the
> biggest mistake community can do is start rewriting *everything* in D for
> the sake of "some user might need that so we have to have that, written
> in D". that is what C interop does: allows us to reuse already written
> and debugged code.
>
> but i can agree that more wrappers and more system API coverage in
> distribution bundle will be fine. now, for example, one can't do more or
> less serious windows programming with DMD "out of the box". *that* is the
> problem, not absense of some 3rd-party library.
>

I agree completely, but we do need good abstractions in e.g. phobos that 
we all agree upon. It doesn't matter what implementations go in however. 
As long as there is enough for out of the box experience.