Show Posts
61
General discussions / Rethinking the definition of "Simple"
« on: April 19, 2014, 06:45:06 pm »
Given my post count, it should be quite obvious that I'm an SFML enthusiast and as such, I've been following many discussions here on the forum but also on IRC. What I've noticed with many discussions regarding API adjustments or feature request, is the argument of keeping things "Simple" as the library's name says: "Simple and Fast Multimedia Library". This is in general good, because it will prevent unnessecary API blow-ups and a like. Unfortunately I've also seen many make use of that argument, but interpreting the word "simple" differently and the longer the more it seems that the general definition is something along the lines of:
"Someone with nearly no C++ experience should be able to use it."
Sure it never gets spelled out like that, but if a discussion only arises around how to make the magic happen by only calling a function and not bother with anything else, it's in my opinion the wrong definition of "simple".
This all kind of leads to the question: Who's the target audience of SFML?
Should SFML be a library with the simplicity for the ones that have learned some C++ in a week and then maybe manage to create a pong game OR should SFML be a library that allows more advanced C++ programmers to create fully featured 2D games, while providing an power full, yet simple and well documented API?
If we're amiing just for the first group ("newbies"), then I strongly believe SFML is not worth anyone's time, because if it's just easy to start with, even the newbies will once advance and notice that SFML doesn't have to offer enough complexity for bigger projects. SFML would then only be a gateway library to game programming.
So what's my point here? When discussing API changes or feature requests, we shouldn't ask ourselves whether newbies can use it easily, but instead ask whether the change would simplify the developer's life, whether it would allow the developer to focus more on the game itself. The focus of newbie-friendly features should shift to "scaleable" features, meaning an API that is more flexible, something that doesn't just work for the simple/newbie use-case but also for complex games and advanced C++ programmers.
Let's forget about "too complicated" and focus on "how do we make it simple"!
"Someone with nearly no C++ experience should be able to use it."
Sure it never gets spelled out like that, but if a discussion only arises around how to make the magic happen by only calling a function and not bother with anything else, it's in my opinion the wrong definition of "simple".
This all kind of leads to the question: Who's the target audience of SFML?
Should SFML be a library with the simplicity for the ones that have learned some C++ in a week and then maybe manage to create a pong game OR should SFML be a library that allows more advanced C++ programmers to create fully featured 2D games, while providing an power full, yet simple and well documented API?
If we're amiing just for the first group ("newbies"), then I strongly believe SFML is not worth anyone's time, because if it's just easy to start with, even the newbies will once advance and notice that SFML doesn't have to offer enough complexity for bigger projects. SFML would then only be a gateway library to game programming.
So what's my point here? When discussing API changes or feature requests, we shouldn't ask ourselves whether newbies can use it easily, but instead ask whether the change would simplify the developer's life, whether it would allow the developer to focus more on the game itself. The focus of newbie-friendly features should shift to "scaleable" features, meaning an API that is more flexible, something that doesn't just work for the simple/newbie use-case but also for complex games and advanced C++ programmers.
Let's forget about "too complicated" and focus on "how do we make it simple"!
