Re: Performer API

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

John Rohlf (jrohlf++at++tubes)
Fri, 8 Oct 93 10:09:08 -0700


>Speaking of Performer and C++, why doesn't SGI release
>the C++ bindings as well as the C?

        Providing clean C++ bindings is far more difficult than
providing clean C bindings and is not simply a matter of shipping .h files.
It is even harder to provide extensibility through subclassing because you
must rigorously define all interfaces. The initial Performer release schedule
was ridiculously short for such a large software project. If we had
concentrated on a nice C++ interface then you would probably have just
recently received your Performer 1.0 CD in the mail. As is often the case,
a conspiracy of schedules dictated the product.

        We have received more interest in C++ bindings than we originally
thought so we will probably do it in the future. Actually, it is probably
best that we wait because we can let the product mature for a while
at which time it will be easier to produce a rigorous and stable C++ API.


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:50:03 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.