Com Vs StateMachine
Author
Why did MS go with COM for DX. I don''t see the benefits from this..Actually SM (whip,whip) seems alot more "readable".
I don''t know what StateMachine is, but I can give you some reasons why COM was the technology chosen for DirectX.
First, it provides language independence. COM technology can be used in standard C, C++, and Visual Basic among others. The syntax is different in each, but it is the exact same COM object used by all.
Second, it is easily versioned and backwards compatible. No matter what new features are added to DirectX, a client machine will always be able to run your software as long as they have a version of DirectX installed that is greater than or equal to the version your software was written for.
Lastly, and perhaps not insignificant, is the fact that COM is a Microsoft developed technology. Much of Windows relies on COM objects and servers, and it makes sense for Microsoft to be somewhat consistent within their own OS.
Maybe you (or someone) can explain and list the benefits of StateMachine.
First, it provides language independence. COM technology can be used in standard C, C++, and Visual Basic among others. The syntax is different in each, but it is the exact same COM object used by all.
Second, it is easily versioned and backwards compatible. No matter what new features are added to DirectX, a client machine will always be able to run your software as long as they have a version of DirectX installed that is greater than or equal to the version your software was written for.
Lastly, and perhaps not insignificant, is the fact that COM is a Microsoft developed technology. Much of Windows relies on COM objects and servers, and it makes sense for Microsoft to be somewhat consistent within their own OS.
Maybe you (or someone) can explain and list the benefits of StateMachine.
gl is a statemachine
dx is a statemachine...
gl is implemented with functions
dx with a com-interface
but they are both statemachines..
and come makes much more sence than gl, wich really is sort of hickhack (at least when you move to extensions
) and does not follow a very straight line..
i prefer gl simply because i started with it.. but com is clean and structured..
com is a model for interfaces.. the gpu is an interface.. you can''t get direct access to it, as you don''t know at all how to simply send an instruction to the gpu..
but you know what it can do and with com you get the interface for it, with all the functions you need..
and gl is c, com is more c++ (can be done in c, but is stupid to do so)
dx is a statemachine...
gl is implemented with functions
dx with a com-interface
but they are both statemachines..
and come makes much more sence than gl, wich really is sort of hickhack (at least when you move to extensions
) and does not follow a very straight line..i prefer gl simply because i started with it.. but com is clean and structured..
com is a model for interfaces.. the gpu is an interface.. you can''t get direct access to it, as you don''t know at all how to simply send an instruction to the gpu..
but you know what it can do and with com you get the interface for it, with all the functions you need..
and gl is c, com is more c++ (can be done in c, but is stupid to do so)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement