Simply load a model or generate a mesh, add some lights, and render.
You mention the point is to make it portable. Does the project have any other goals, like, what kind of games could be made with it, how fast does it need to be? Do you have any performance metrics to share?
- Try to make it clear in the description that it's software rendering (it's easy to miss this information).
- The readme should include a clear list of features.
- Be aware that the AGPL license might be a problem for many people.
thanks! super cool project to learn stuff from =)
As for portability, not sure yet, this is meant to more or less be a rendering/animation engine that is lightweight, probably portable to embedded processors like ESP32s?
If I care about free software but also want to "protect" my work to prevent people from forking it without releasing their contributions because of strong copyleft. Many of my open source personal projects are licensed under AGPL.
Yes it only works for Linux. But these days it’s pretty easy to get a Foam with WSL on Windows and Docker for desktop
Sticking with a Makefile is going get increasingly unwieldy for a large project
I'm more confused as to why it applies to this tbh. GPL would have sufficed no?
I personally don't use AGPL software if I intend on trying to expand on something as a business idea. I'd be fully willing to give back bugfixes and donate back, but I'm not about to hand off anything I pour months and years into to my competitors for free.
Not sure if it's what the OP wants, but I think it's a neat license and I don't see it used anywhere.
Library authors can pour "months and years" into their projects, and yet you expect them (but not yourself) to give away their code under more permissive terms, while you keep yours closed? The (A)GPL is a great choice because it forces people like you to either (1) open up your code or (2) pay for a closed-source license.
I also don't agree on the second point - I don't see what makes the CMake "harder to implement" than make/mk. It's already implemented and all you need is a compiler, which we have plenty of.
Plan 9
> I don't see what makes the CMake "harder to implement" than make/mk
If you can't use the existing codebase, then you have to implement cmake from scratch, which is orders of magnitude more difficult than implementing a mk interpreter.
> Plan 9 is a research operating system, and exists to answer questions about ideas in OS design. As such, the Plan 9 experience is in essence an exploration of the interesting ideas it puts forth. Most of the ideas are small.
> ...
> Plan 9 failed, in a sense, because Unix was simply too big and too entrenched by the time Plan 9 came around. It was doomed by its predecessor. Nevertheless, its design ideas and implementation resonate deeply with me, and have provided an endless supply of inspiration for my own work. I think that everyone owes it to themselves to spend a few weeks messing around with and learning about Plan 9. The dream is kept alive by 9front, which is the most actively maintained fork of Plan 9 available today. Install it on your ThinkPad and mess around.
[0] https://drewdevault.com/2022/11/12/In-praise-of-Plan-9.html