SFML 2.1

I've had no issues thusly with any of the modules. I would avoid their threading stuff now though, since c++11 threads are pretty good.

I'm using them to make a project cross-platform for fun, having no problem on my mac and on my win system.

I've had no issues thusly with any of the modules. I would avoid their threading stuff now though, since c++11 threads are pretty good.

The downside to C++11 threads is that, as the name suggests, they're only available on C++11-enabled compilers.

I've had no issues thusly with any of the modules. I would avoid their threading stuff now though, since c++11 threads are pretty good.

The downside to C++11 threads is that, as the name suggests, they're only available on C++11-enabled compilers.

True, but since we are having this conversation in 2014, that should be OK. :)

There are many other good things in C++11 (smart pointers, for loops, move semantics...) and I strongly encourage people to transition to it.

Well, the problem with std::threads is that they are really not very well supported (at least on Windows).

You can pick MSVC (in which case you have std::thread, but miss out on quite a few other things normally included in C++11).

You can alternatively pick MinGW. The 'default' MinGW does not include std::thread and has no plans to support them in the foreseeable future. The alternative is a perfectly fine replacement but they also don't have the most performant implementation right now (pthread vs native constructs).

Of course, there are boost::threads which should be pretty much identical to the std version but work fine on every platform.

Edit: as to the original question: personally, I would either use either std::thread or boost::thread. I would not consider using SFML threads.

Edit 2: never mind, conflated a few threads in my head and should have skimmed it again before adding that.

Edit: as to the original question: personally, I would either use either std::thread or boost::thread. I would not consider using SFML threads.

That had nothing to do with the original question. SFML is a great API IMO. I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone using C++.

No problems with SFML 2.x so far. Stable enough for me!

For me in SFML there are several stupid things

its a int mixing with float in texture size(why these cast)

and

texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).

texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).

http://www.sfml-dev.org/documentation/2.1/classsf_1_1Texture.php#aa6fd3bbe3c334b3c4428edfb2765a82e

texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).

Firstly, according to the TheComet's link to the documentation, using pixel or normalized coordinates is a choice. Secondly, since SFML has a strong focus on being a reasonable library for 2D game development, having a default value of pixel-based sounds extremely reasonable.

I use SFML 2.1 and I think it is fantastic. I use all parts of it and have not had any issues thus far.

texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).

http://www.sfml-dev.org/documentation/2.1/classsf_1_1Texture.php#aa6fd3bbe3c334b3c4428edfb2765a82e

what about veretex, are there normalized texture coords? Think no , becouse I just copied that sentence directly from them documentation. Or its only in new version?

texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).

http://www.sfml-dev.org/documentation/2.1/classsf_1_1Texture.php#aa6fd3bbe3c334b3c4428edfb2765a82e

what about veretex, are there normalized texture coords? Think no , becouse I just copied that sentence directly from them documentation. Or its only in new version?

What do you mean?

I've constructed a manual mesh in SFML before and the UV coordinates were always normalized. It's how graphics cards work.

And besides, you can just convert between them by dividing/multiplying by the width/height of the image.

I use SFML 2.1 as my primary C++ windowing library for OpenGL programs, and I quite like it. It requires no boilerplate because it uses RAII, which I really appreciate.