Re: [MiNT] GEM frameworks (was: Bit-Depth and Graphics stuff....)

[m0n0 <ole@monochrom.net>]

Am Dienstag, den 13.07.2010, 11:33 +0200 schrieb Peter Slegg
<p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk>:

> I want proper GEM apps but we need to be pragmatic. Like I said
> having a fully compliant web browser would be good even without it
> being properly GEM.

I wan't it to be GEM,... The framebuffer version can also be used as long
as there is no real GEM port.
Of course the framebuffer version lacks several important features.... for
example no keyboard Language translation... but instead of improving the
framebuffer version, which is mainly intended for debugging and low
dependency requierements, I think it's better to develop towards an GEM
port... I think it's not so easy to get patches for the framebuffer version
into the trunk... But with an GEM port, we can do what we want, at any
time.

Currently I'm training more GEM programming... My limited knowledge about
GEM code wouldn't be good for the port, so training is needed. 

Btw. what do people think about GEM frameworks, which one should we / I
stick to for an project like netsurf? Currently I'm using an very old lib
(1992 - powergem) for GEM coding. It's not bloated and it can be compiled
with pure-c, I can link to it with my Mega-ST and src is available) :) 
But netsurf port will not be coded with an MegaST, of course ;) And it
probably won't be compiled with pure-c..., so It's ok to choose an GEM
framework that is only available for GCC...  I think WinDom is the first
choice. Or does there exists some lib that compares? 

Btw. thanks for all your Informations on graphics stuff :) 

Greets,
Ole