Re: My First Computer (was Computing Editorial)

["Ross Simpson" <yeah_whatever>]

"Kelly Hall" <hall@priest.com> wrote in message...

> > As for DirectX, all I can say is it's shocking. Why waste using a
Pentium
> 4
> > on sloppy stuff, when it could have some good programming through the
use
> of
> > the hardware?
>
> Umm, I don't think you've ever tried writing commercial programs that have
> to run on a wide variety of existing hardware, let alone continue to run
on
> the next generation hardware that hasn't been invented yet.  That's why
> abstractions like DirectX exist, and why they are so popular among both
> software and hardware producers.

Well I haven't tryied writing commercial programs. However the likes of
DirectX only exist on one hardware platform as well! Hardware interrupts are
the same deal (regardless of platform). Okay, so the likes of Windoze are
also trying to cut it out (which is bad), however Windoze is so bad it could
do without it :-) But it could have been better if there wasn't so much
overhead.

> But if you want to hand-craft some cool program that works only with one
> flavor of video card and CPU, go right ahead.  Just don't feel bad if
you're
> the only person who can run it.

Well that doesn't bother me a bit, it's just a matter of principle that some
people can get away with talking about good programming using DirectX. Show
me where I can download a different copy of DirectX for an entirely
different CPU, Video Card etc.

> > To program more poorly justify's why hardware has entered into that
crazy
> > level, it's encouraging hardware manufacturers to make more stupid
> > hardware so that they can make more money out of it.
>
> What stupid hardware do you have in mind?  Modern video cards aren't
exactly
> stupid.

CPUs, Hard Disks. I mean, I must be able to download 50 operating systems &
have the essential software for it!

> I guess this thread is running into conflicting definitions of
'efficiency'
> as applied to software.  One could write software in a manner to optimize
> the run-time of the code, of to use fewer hardware resources; this
approach
> can take a lot of time to program.  One could also write software in a
> manner to minimize the time the programmer spends on the task; this
approach
> can take more hardware and software resources.  Both methods are
> 'efficient', depending on what resource it is you're trying to minimize.
>
> > But hey, don't take me personally, I'm just some hobbyist programmer who
> > programs for CP/M-86 cause I like to! :-) You can keep all the DirectX's
> > you want.
>
> Clearly, the operative word is 'hobbyist'.  Perhaps for you, hand-crafting
> x86 assembly to do some graphics work is a labor of love.  For
> professionals, it's simply labor.  Costly labor.  Worse, it's labor that
> will be duplicated for every possible video card and CPU combination that
> the user might have.  Much cheaper for everyone to write using a standard
> graphics API like DirectX and let the video card vendors cough out DirectX
> drivers for their own hardware.
>
> But by all means, go ahead and prove me wrong: go hand-code a hot game for
> your P4 and GeForce 200 MX or whatever hardware you have.  And then watch
it
> not get played because other people have different hardware.  Standardized
> APIs for hardware are a great thing; don't shit on them just because they
> are from Microsoft.

Heh! :-) It's all a matter of efficently!! :-) It will only get worse! :-(

Ross.