Directx unnecessary complicated
I am getting more confused after deciding on directx and reading on early parts of it, now i come up this article written by this very
old timer programmer that bangs directx for being extremly bloated , huge overhead , unnecessarily super complicated and written wrong from the base up and programmers just have to put up because there is not much competition out there for MS.
is opengl a more straight forward API . i dont know!
was classes and com and vf & polymorphin..... supposed to make the job of programmer easier? harder? or boring like a robot.just like MS wanted, where is the fun in programming anymore.
I wish dos hadnt left the building.
I give up.
Re: Directx unnecessary complicated
Quote:
Originally posted by SAMSAM
I wish dos hadnt left the building.
I give up.
I don't see what DOS has that Windows or Linux doesn't.
If you're talking about simple 2D stuff, well, you can use something else, like SDL, Allegro, or what have you. I know SDL does, and I assume Allegro does, use DirectX, but you don't ever have to look at it youself, it's more like a wrapper.
If you want to do 3D, well, I can't help you there. I haven't learned any 3D yet, but when I do, I'll be using OpenGL, along with SDL for input, sound, etc..
Anyhow, you don't need to give up. If you want just simpler graphics programming, there are some decent libraries that will let you do it.
Just some thoughts.