libCat VS magnum

That's awesome! I'm working on something that sounds similar. https://github.com/cons-cat/libcat

I'd love to see your work if you're willing to share it here!

This runtime size bothers me a lot. So much that I've been working on a new runtime for C++ that breaks POSIX compatibility to keep binaries as small as they can be. The hello world with LTO is 330ish bytes right now, and I think that can get smaller. https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat

I'm working on a library that replaces both C++ and C/POSIX standard libraries (https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat), but even then I need to define a few std:: namespace symbols for some features. In the case of std::initializer_list, my answer is just don't use that feature, because you don't really need it.

It's worse in the standard library than it has to be. When I refactored my traits to minimize template instantiations and lean on concepts as much as possible, I measured over 30% improvement to clean build compile times. It's not possible for the standard to do this, because it would subtly change the API. For instance, you can't instantiate or take the address of a concept, but you can for a type-trait class. No reason you'd want to do that, but you can, so they can't "break" the standard library by optimizing this.

This doesn't have to be true. Over the past year I've made progress towards demonstrating how even non-freestanding C++ can be written without any C or C++ standard library headers or DLLs (with large benefits). There are a few names which the compilers require to be in the std:: namespace, though, but they're very special features like source_location and construct_at with semantics that can't be expressed otherwise.

This bit cast has no overhead in debug mode, and is a little bit more generally useful than std::bit_cast(), but cannot be constant evaluated. https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat/blob/main/src/libraries/utility/implementations/bit_cast.tpp

It isn't that hard to put a predicate into a type. We have lambdas in an unevaluated context, CTAD, and templated type aliases. https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat/blob/main/src/libraries/scaredy/cat/scaredy https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat/blob/main/src/global_includes.hpp#L70 https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat/blob/main/src/libraries/linux/cat/linux#L289 You do it like this.

But suppose that you have code with no standard library calls at all. Would it still make sense to choose this naming convention? This is actually possible, with a few special exceptions. GCC requires that an implementation of std::source_location has very particular class member names, GCC assigns special semantics to a few function names including std::construct_at and std::move (people seem to know it's inlined, but did you know std::move is required for move-related warnings?), and most intrusively of all, a promise_type must be snake_case. Other names can be worked around by using them into a different namespace with a different letter-case, but promise_type seems unavoidable.

I use C++ for a low-level Linux runtime. Other people are using it for operating systems like SerenityOS and Zircon/Fuschia. People also use C++ for making more compilers like GCC and LLVM.

Magnum

If you want something that gives you more control you could use magnum.

Therefore, in terms of artist mindshare, Blender is the leading open source 3D creation program, but not the leading 3D creation program. I think Godot is already in a similar situation, and has been for a few years now. In comparison, most other open source game engines have focused on providing low-level functionality. These certainly fulfill a niche, but in my experience, most people want something that works at a higher level and comes with a built-in editor.

Magnum is worth checking out.

Since you want something lightweight, I'll assume you mean the former. If that's the case, then checkout bgfx or Magnum. Magnum does include some extra features typically found in a graphics engine.

You could try Magnum it wraps SDL and others, but you might find it maybe too low-level. It's certainly not Love2D.

C++ is similar to C in that there are multiple "styles" of use that vary from project to project. Other, usually newer languages (C#, Python, Rust, etc) tend to have a stronger sense of what idioms should be used. Whereas, for instance, some C++ projects (like some GUI libraries and game/graphics engines) will partially/entirely replace the STL (and older ones may have been around before C++ had a standard library aside from C's), or forbid the use of certain C++ features (example).

Magnum Graphics

> He has Vulkan support in here with a clearly marked file named Pipeline.cpp. The guy knows what a pipeline is...

There is a Vulkan API wrapper. However, there is no "Vk Renderer" -- no code seems to use the Vulkan parts of the code system, and the two projects seem unrelated.

> * Is this not a UBO interface?

There are ways of making a uniform buffer, however the examples don't cover them and the API doesn't adapt automatically. See how all of the setters assert if UBOs are enabled.

https://github.com/mosra/magnum/blob/cfc02599e54e02337dd56bb...

> * I don't see why you think there's limited support for multiple framebuffers...?

The code I do see is about binding/unbinding framebuffers in a stateful manner, e.g. AbstractFramebuffer::bind(), rather than supporting passes.

> 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.

To put it simply, I've taught enough graphics to know first-hand the kinds of misconceptions that OpenGL-styled APIs can cause, and I'm just a bit tired to see it continue. Admittedly I was a bit harsh, I don't mean any harm towards the author. There are just graphics APIs with interfaces I consider to be much better designed.