1
General discussions / Re: SFML 2.1 Visual Studio 2013 binaries + source + template
« on: June 25, 2014, 01:35:28 am »
For what it's worth (and I'm aware that's close to zero for most of you as this is just opinions from a guy with 2 posts who doesn't even use SFML anymore):
Fitzy and Ixrec are right for the most part and where they are wrong is because they're not going far enough or conceding points in the face of weak arguments.
The ideal SFML user experience can be glimpsed by looking at the Linux installation instructions:
1. sudo apt-get install libsfml-dev
2. done
This is true no matter where the user sits on the noob-to-pro spectrum. While a pro has the *ability* to compile from source and deal with all kinds of issues, they still *prefer* to use a library in packaged form (when it's just a simple dependency on their project). There's many reasons for that, with security and stability sometimes more important than mere convenience (although for a library that isn't hugely popular and arguably targeted at beginners, convenience is the main factor).
This super easy user experience isn't widespread on Windows (yet? I think Nuget has a real shot at bringing this about). In that context, it's perfectly justifiable to say "get the source, install CMake, follow these steps carefully". However that doesn't make the advantages of proper packaging go away, and people who volunteer helpful packaging solutions shouldn't be dismissed as counterproductive.
Not to mention that providing a workaround for an actual issue in the latest official release cannot be a bad thing, surely?
Fitzy and Ixrec are right for the most part and where they are wrong is because they're not going far enough or conceding points in the face of weak arguments.
The ideal SFML user experience can be glimpsed by looking at the Linux installation instructions:
1. sudo apt-get install libsfml-dev
2. done
This is true no matter where the user sits on the noob-to-pro spectrum. While a pro has the *ability* to compile from source and deal with all kinds of issues, they still *prefer* to use a library in packaged form (when it's just a simple dependency on their project). There's many reasons for that, with security and stability sometimes more important than mere convenience (although for a library that isn't hugely popular and arguably targeted at beginners, convenience is the main factor).
This super easy user experience isn't widespread on Windows (yet? I think Nuget has a real shot at bringing this about). In that context, it's perfectly justifiable to say "get the source, install CMake, follow these steps carefully". However that doesn't make the advantages of proper packaging go away, and people who volunteer helpful packaging solutions shouldn't be dismissed as counterproductive.
Not to mention that providing a workaround for an actual issue in the latest official release cannot be a bad thing, surely?