Are we looking at the same code? I'm not an OpenGL or Vulkan expert, but:
> ...rather than packing them into a PSO struct. Why?
* You can clearly read on the front page of the repository that this supports OpenGL 2 through 4.6. I think you're just not looking hard enough. He has Vulkan support in here with a clearly marked file named Pipeline.cpp. The guy knows what a pipeline is...
> ...rather than being provided as a UBO interface.
* Is this not a UBO interface?
> layout(std140) uniform material {
vec4 diffuse;
vec4 specular;
};
It's in his documentation for AbstractShaderProgram. He has explicit binding for stuff pre OpenGL 3.3 or whenever OpenGL added UBOs.
> ...appears like limited support for multiple framebuffers.
* I don't see why you think there's limited support for multiple framebuffers...? From his docs:
> @section GL-Framebuffer-usage-multiple-outputs Multiple fragment shader outputs
And then it goes on to explain how to use multiple framebuffer outputs for something like deferred rendering.
Moreover, his docs have snippets like this:
> @deprecated_gl Prefer to use @ref AbstractFramebuffer::clearDepth() @ref AbstractFramebuffer::clearDepthStencil() instead of @ref setClearDepth() and @ref AbstractFramebuffer::clear() as it leads to less state changes
Which clearly shows this guy knows what global state is and why it's bad.
I think you're making very broad assumptions based on a very cursory glance at this project. I've only looked at it for about 30 minutes and it looks like a well developed library by somebody who knows what they're doing.
I'm sure I could find code that counters the rest of your argument, but I don't feel like looking anymore. None of your criticism seem well intentioned. It might behoove you to give people the benefit of the doubt and realize that you may be able to learn something from them, even if they're so clearly inferior to you.
P.S. Don't start off a criticism by saying "how many sins do I count". I don't know your experience, but that's just such an incredibly pretentious statement that's begging to be countered by somebody way more knowledgeable than you about this stuff.
I don't think the parent comment is getting bad comments in opposition because people aren't "clear-eyed about rural areas". I think it's more likely because the parent comment lists all of the attributes of urban areas in a positive tone and all the attributes of a rural area in a negative tone. I think most people are well balanced in their opinions on urban vs. rural life, and realize there are pros and cons to both. It would have been nice if the parent comment listed a well balanced opinion instead of a heavily one sided opinion.
And maybe I'm misinterpreting the parent comment as well and I feel like the comments about rural areas were negative because of my bias. That could be the case, but I'm inclined to believe that the parent comment was quite biased in favor of urban areas.
I don't find this argument very convincing. The same argument could be made about security vulnerabilities, but I'm willing to bet (and hoping that this is the case) that Google will invest millions of dollars and man hours per year on security patches and secure systems.
Sure, hackers will always find loop holes. But when that happens we flag that version as vulnerable and release a patch to fix the vulnerability. This is the exact same technique Google could apply to the YouTube spam. They just don't want to spend the money or time to do it.
I wonder if there should be a distinction between memorization and intuition. The author alludes to the fact that if you can build an intuition to the fact that daylight savings time was right in the middle of world War 1, then you can remember more easily that it was in 1916.
I have found that I cannot remember certain mathematical properties at all. For instance I always forget whether to use sin or cos to get the x component or y component. But, I had a few teachers force us to memorize the fundamentals: SOH, CAH, TOA. Using the fundamentals allows me to prove to myself very quickly what I should use. It's the same thing with the quadratic formula. I can never remember it, but I had a calculus teacher show us how the equation is derived. I can remember what a parabola is, and I also remember the fundamentals of calculus. Using these two things I can derive the quadratic formula pretty easily.
So I wonder if there's a 2nd metric that we're missing. Where we need to memorize fundamentals, and critically think about how to use those fundamentals. I don't know, this could just be more anecdata though :)
> ...rather than packing them into a PSO struct. Why?
* You can clearly read on the front page of the repository that this supports OpenGL 2 through 4.6. I think you're just not looking hard enough. He has Vulkan support in here with a clearly marked file named Pipeline.cpp. The guy knows what a pipeline is...
> ...rather than being provided as a UBO interface.
* Is this not a UBO interface?
> layout(std140) uniform material { vec4 diffuse; vec4 specular; };
It's in his documentation for AbstractShaderProgram. He has explicit binding for stuff pre OpenGL 3.3 or whenever OpenGL added UBOs.
> ...appears like limited support for multiple framebuffers.
* I don't see why you think there's limited support for multiple framebuffers...? From his docs:
> @section GL-Framebuffer-usage-multiple-outputs Multiple fragment shader outputs
And then it goes on to explain how to use multiple framebuffer outputs for something like deferred rendering.
Moreover, his docs have snippets like this:
> @deprecated_gl Prefer to use @ref AbstractFramebuffer::clearDepth() @ref AbstractFramebuffer::clearDepthStencil() instead of @ref setClearDepth() and @ref AbstractFramebuffer::clear() as it leads to less state changes
Which clearly shows this guy knows what global state is and why it's bad.
I think you're making very broad assumptions based on a very cursory glance at this project. I've only looked at it for about 30 minutes and it looks like a well developed library by somebody who knows what they're doing.
I'm sure I could find code that counters the rest of your argument, but I don't feel like looking anymore. None of your criticism seem well intentioned. It might behoove you to give people the benefit of the doubt and realize that you may be able to learn something from them, even if they're so clearly inferior to you.
P.S. Don't start off a criticism by saying "how many sins do I count". I don't know your experience, but that's just such an incredibly pretentious statement that's begging to be countered by somebody way more knowledgeable than you about this stuff.