i see, no unknown discussion but …
it hurts me hard to see these unnessecary doubled gl_prefixes … its like a bad covered/ported song where the musican simply makes an 1:1 copy of notes but has no knowledge and feeling for music, takes no care about the result … got not the sense of the song itself …
please have a look at this snippet:
gl.glBegin(GL_QUADS);
gl.glNormal3f( 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.5f);
gl.glTexCoord2f(0.0f, 0.0f); gl.glVertex3f(-1.0f, -1.0f, 1.0f);
glTexCoord2f(1.0f, 0.0f); gl.glVertex3f( 1.0f, -1.0f, 1.0f);
glTexCoord2f(1.0f, 1.0f); gl.glVertex3f( 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f);
gl.glTexCoord2f(0.0f, 1.0f); gl.glVertex3f(-1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f);
(…)
gl.glEnd();
what should be the meaning of "gl.glBegin(…)? it tells me: there is a “begin” of “something what GL is” which will be addressed to “something what GL” is. sorry: if you want to know why some softwarepackages are oversized, full of crap, intransparent, too complexe and other packages are smart, fast, consistent and readable, so you can find the difference in decisions like this… summary shows quality …
its like good performance optimization: the focus should not be at a few ppl which are in an openGL-porting context or “porting C programs to java” ) … the focus should be at “the everyday situation of masses of java programers which uses an 3d-opengl-java api in combination with other apis and with the intention to create readable software”. some “wrong” ports and you can make a languages and system absolutly inconsistent, oversized, unreadable … the mistake: wrong focus … optimizing the wrong part of a program …
you CAN relatively simple automate portings from “C/C+±openGL” to java and … in any event ppl doing this needs to know more details … but you can NOT avoid the effects of wrong complexity/overhead, intransparency and inconsistency for the masses in an everyday situations for masses of programers … every “bit” as a result of a wrong decision could be the switch that a good idea, a good software will never be realized. intelligence keeps things easier and there are very good reasons for that…
and: i think … it is simply no good idea to create an enviroment where the source gets more and more distance to an selfexplaining character (and to the logic of oo/java). imagine a program where every method is oversized or modified because “in the history of building this api …” or “ok, the logic will raise if you think about conversion” etc. … this would not be anymore a good language for programing but an indirecte porting and conversion language …
and sorry, with a little sense for aesthetics and logic: “gl.gl_vertex3f(…)” SCREAMS for a better solution! “gl.vertex3f(…)” tells everything you want to know, gives an assocative bridge to openGL, shows consistent that vertex is in “gl” etc.
so i think the next snippet is much better and if you imagine thousands of situations where ppl read javacode and check their sources, so you can calculate where the priorities should be …
gl.begin(QUADS);
gl.normal3f( 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.5f);
gl.texCoord2f(0.0f, 0.0f); gl.vertex3f(-1.0f, -1.0f, 1.0f);
gl.texCoord2f(1.0f, 0.0f); gl.vertex3f( 1.0f, -1.0f, 1.0f);
gl.texCoord2f(1.0f, 1.0f); gl.vertex3f( 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f);
gl.texCoord2f(0.0f, 1.0f); gl.vertex3f(-1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f);
(…)
gl.end();
- better integration in the logic of oo/java
- much better readable sources
- more transparency
- more elegance
- more sense
- smaller
ps: finally … if the prefix will not change it could be really an idea to make an alternate/modified port of the port for ppl who dont like the senseless overhead … serioes: i personally really dont like such “style” in my sources … baeh!
ps2: i also think that “one” standard would be the best … but like in offline life: there are limits - or better: i prefer the focus at the general standard of the oo/java context …
)