calref
Discussion: SFML 3.0
I just saw in the SFML Discord that they put out the first release candidate for SFML 3:
This response is great:
😆
So we've talked about things we dislike in SFML 2, and porting to SDL instead has been mentioned. Personally I think changing backends should be considered a monstrously serious investment that we can't afford to make with just the current number of contributors to fix the inevitable influx of new bugs that would come from that. Being pretty locked into SFML, cool new features would be nice--I'm looking forward to reading the changelog and seeing if there's anything new in it that would benefit cboe. And maybe I'll try building against this release candidate in a new branch, if I see anything worthwhile.
I'm definitely very reluctant to bump the C++ standard requirement. I'm pretty sure C++17 would mean I can't build in Xcode 4 anymore. (Though, there's a good chance the current code already doesn't build in Xcode 4, since I haven't been checking it recently.)
I think it might boil down to "we should support building against either SFML2 with C++11 or SFML3 with C++17", but I don't know how much work that would actually be. I'd at least need to have my old Mac set up before I can really think about it.
Apparently they're going to backport the bug fixes to SFML 2.6.2 anyway so maybe we'll get all those without doing the bump.
SFML 3.0 seems to be out (and default on arch linux, SFML 2.6 is only in AUR). https://www.sfml-dev.org/tutorials/3.0/getting-started/migrate/
The impression I get from that is that updating would be quite tricky but not updating would also cause a lot of issues.
And arranging things so that the game can build with either SFML2 or SFML3 looks like it would be more trouble than it's worth.
Perhaps we can start by checking the last version of SFML2. Maybe upgrading that far makes the jump all the way to SFML3 a bit easier (and/or maintaining dual version support easier).
I think we’re on the last version of SFML 2 already.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 10:18 PM Celtic Minstrel @.***> wrote:
The impression I get from that is that updating would be quite tricky but not updating would also cause a lot of issues.
And arranging things so that the game can build with either SFML2 or SFML3 looks like it would be more trouble than it's worth.
Perhaps we can start by checking the last version of SFML2. Maybe upgrading that far makes the jump all the way to SFML3 a bit easier (and/or maintaining dual version support easier).
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/calref/cboe/issues/442#issuecomment-2677403363, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATXBKNCFJ2VWCWWDPVJJKD2RKMSJAVCNFSM6AAAAABOGB7XSKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMNZXGQYDGMZWGM . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***> [image: CelticMinstrel]CelticMinstrel left a comment (calref/cboe#442) https://github.com/calref/cboe/issues/442#issuecomment-2677403363
The impression I get from that is that updating would be quite tricky but not updating would also cause a lot of issues.
And arranging things so that the game can build with either SFML2 or SFML3 looks like it would be more trouble than it's worth.
Perhaps we can start by checking the last version of SFML2. Maybe upgrading that far makes the jump all the way to SFML3 a bit easier (and/or maintaining dual version support easier).
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/calref/cboe/issues/442#issuecomment-2677403363, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATXBKNCFJ2VWCWWDPVJJKD2RKMSJAVCNFSM6AAAAABOGB7XSKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMNZXGQYDGMZWGM . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>